evaluate_app_builder_flow

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

Discloses the three steps and mentions AI-fixable items, but with no annotations it fails to detail potential side effects (e.g., does it modify code?), auth needs, or rate limits; only partial transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key steps, no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the 1-sentence description is insufficient for full understanding. Missing return format, prerequisites, and error handling; adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only hinting at workflow steps but not explaining how parameters like code/files/context map to those steps.

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?

Clearly specifies the tool runs a 3-step app-builder workflow (tribunal review, risk translation, remediation) with AI-fixable P0/P1 items, distinguishing it from single-step evaluation siblings like evaluate_code or evaluate_project.

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?

Implies usage for app-builder flows but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like evaluate_code/evaluate_project, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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