Nemesis Audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. 'Scan' and the audit title imply read-only inspection, which is useful, but the description does not state side effects, output format, or any environmental requirements. It is not misleading, but it is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource before the purpose. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and closely related siblings, a single sentence is insufficient. It lacks expected output/return behavior, safety characteristics, and guidance for distinguishing it from nemesis_stale_fixtures, leaving the agent to infer important context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents lang, paths, exclude, and strictness. The phrase 'or given paths' adds slight clarity to the paths parameter, but the description otherwise adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('scan'), a concrete resource (repository/given paths), and the target concept (contract drift between test doubles and production code), so an agent can understand the core function. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools nemesis_verify_symbol or nemesis_stale_fixtures, so it stops short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over nemesis_verify_symbol or nemesis_stale_fixtures, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only context is that paths can be supplied, but no decision criteria are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.