AuditCodeIntegrity

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose safety and side effects. It mentions returning structured JSON findings and lists checks, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies files, or any permission requirements. Behavioral details beyond the basic function are absent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by a compact parenthetical list of checks. It provides all essential information without wasted words.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the return structure or behavioral constraints. It only says 'structured JSON findings', which is vague. The check list adds context but does not fully prepare the agent for expected outputs or side effects.

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 coverage for the two parameters is 100%, so the description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema. The 'file or directory' phrase mirrors the target description, and no additional syntax or parameter-specific guidance is provided.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and identifies the resource as 'code integrity auditor', listing concrete check categories (lifecycle teardown parity, mock-theater test detection, naming invariants, swallowed exceptions) and targets (file or directory). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling safety checkers.

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 implies usage for auditing code integrity but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like JsSafetyChecker. It only states the input target, not when to choose this tool over others.

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