Run the one-step quality & security audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses conditional behavior (semgrep 'if installed', Lighthouse 'if a running app url is provided'), return content ('scored report with a concrete fix list'), pass criteria ('passed=true (score >= minScore, default 80, with zero critical findings)'), and instructs self-verification of manualChecklist items. It is transparent that this is an analysis/audit tool, not a mutator.

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 dense paragraph but every sentence adds value: workflow phase, pipeline contents, return value, fix/re-run loop, manual checklist, and standalone usage. It is slightly long but not wasteful; front-loading with 'Phase 5' anchors it immediately.

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 is remarkably complete. It covers the full audit pipeline, the report format, the pass condition, the relationship to deploy, and the standalone mode. It even includes operational guidance ('Fix EVERYTHING in fixList and re-run') which is essential for an agent to use it correctly.

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 is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema: it explains that projectId is for App Factory projects and should be omitted for standalone audits, that appPath is the root folder, that minScore is the quality gate with a default and can be raised, and that url triggers Lighthouse. This goes beyond the schema's field titles.

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 and resource: 'Runs the full audit pipeline against the app' followed by a concrete list of checks (typecheck, lint, tests, vulnerability scan, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like test_app and deploy by framing itself as 'Phase 5' and defining the gate to deploy.

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 gives clear workflow context ('Phase 5', 'only then does the project advance to deploy') and explicitly covers standalone use ('pass appPath without projectId'). It does not name alternative tools for exclusionary advice, but the usage context is strong enough to guide selection.

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