Audit Documentation Coverage

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

The description details behavioral traits beyond annotations: it explains the dependency on a lineage cache, initial fetch time, caching TTL (30 min), and defines 'documented' for nodes and columns. It also notes that column lists are capped at 200. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable context without contradiction.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by clear sections for Args, Returns, and additional details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (scanning all nodes, caching, reporting statistics), the description covers all necessary aspects: return structure, undocumented node/column listing limits, and caching behavior. No critical gaps are present.

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 'workspaceID' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description merely restates it as 'Workspace to audit', adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to scan all nodes and columns in a workspace and report documentation coverage statistics. It uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('documentation coverage'), and is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_workspace_nodes' or 'analyze_workspace_patterns'.

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 documentation coverage and mentions caching behavior, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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