mavis_auditor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only — never modifies the workspace' and mentions the return format ('severity, file, line'). This adequately covers the safety and output profile, though it does not address performance, prerequisites, or error behavior.

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 succinct but information-dense: two sentences plus a compact list of checks with parenthetical definitions. It front-loads the core purpose and safety note, then covers usage. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff.

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 scanner with 6 checks and no output schema, the description covers purpose, specific checks, output fields (severity, file, line), read-only safety, and usage timing. It lacks an example output or error handling details, but it gives enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning to the check enums by explaining each (e.g., 'muro_de_fuego (queries to ops_* without ownerId)'), which goes beyond the schema's enum values. This enriches parameter understanding and justifies a 4.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Read-only KOMO antipattern detector' and explains it 'Scans files' for a specific list of antipatterns, with a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mavis_git or mavis_write, which handle version control or file writing.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use before commits, before refactors, or as a code review assistant.' This gives clear context and timing, though it does not mention any exclusions or specific alternatives. Still, the guidance is unambiguous.

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