code_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists the types of checks but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, its potential impact, or any prerequisites like permissions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 performs project-wide audits with no output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., file paths, line numbers, severity) which would help the AI interpret results.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions and enum values for all 5 parameters, so the description adds minimal additional meaning. The examples of 'bare except:' and 'print() calls' are also covered in 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 finds code quality issues like TODO/FIXME comments, deprecated symbols, and structural patterns, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_usages or outline that serve different purposes.

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 recommends 'Use for project-wide audits,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the extensive sibling list.

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