360° Audit

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

The description provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it runs 'every scanner, every engine,' produces 'scored and correlated' results, and includes 'trend versus last run' implying stateful comparisons. However, it does not disclose the destructive nature indicated by annotations (destructiveHint: true) nor any side effects, prerequisites, or performance implications. The description adds some value but does not fully contextualize the operation's impact.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and enumerating the scope efficiently. The list of scanners is dense but effective, and the final sentence reinforces the tool's role as the definitive audit. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more compact by trimming redundant emphasis.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the breadth of coverage but omits crucial details: what 'trend versus last run' entails (e.g., previous run required), the nature of the destructive hint, and the expected output format. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' of results or side effects, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The single parameter 'path' is fully documented in the schema ('Absolute path to the repository root'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 states a precise, comprehensive purpose: 'Complete end-to-end audit' enumerating specific scanners (Security, AST, secrets, CVEs, IaC, dead code, complexity, test gaps) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be 'the single call that tells an agent everything about a codebase.' It clearly differentiates from the many specialized tools in the sibling list.

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?

It clearly communicates when to use the tool—when a comprehensive, all-encompassing audit is needed—by framing it as the 'single call' that replaces individual scans. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance (e.g., 'use security_scan if you only need security checks'), leaving some inference to the agent.

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