audit

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful context: it is deterministic, runs a full audit, and returns a score plus findings with file:line, severity, and suggested fixes. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The when-to-use instruction is front-loaded, the tool's purpose and output are compactly described, and the sibling routing and parameter tip are placed in the final sentence.

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?

The description covers when to use it, what it scans, what it returns, how to filter results, and when to use the sibling tool instead. Given the read-only annotations and fully documented schema, nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema already documents both limit and min_severity. The description adds one practical tip about min_severity cutting noise, but does not materially extend the schema's parameter explanations.

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 runs the full deterministic audit across security, dead code, duplicates, naming, complexity, and infrastructure, and returns a score plus findings. This is a specific verb-resource pairing and it is distinguished from audit_delta, its most similar sibling.

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 says when to call it: after finishing an edit and before telling the user work is done. It also gives a concrete alternative — prefer audit_delta for a diff-sized answer — plus guidance on using min_severity to cut noise.

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