audit_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Audit' strongly implies a non-mutating inspection and there are zero parameters, so there is little risk of unintended writes, but the description says nothing about cost, coverage limits (whole project vs. selection), or what happens on large projects.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place by naming an audited domain. It is efficient but flat, with no structure to signal which domain matters most or how results are organized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the zero-parameter schema is trivially complete. What is missing is behavioral framing for a zero-arg project-wide diagnostic: whether it is read-only, how heavy it is, and whether it scopes to the whole project or the current selection.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or obscures the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and enumerates the four domains covered: texture sets, channels, layer hygiene, and outdated resources. That is enough to distinguish it from pure listers like list_layers or find_outdated_resources, though it never names a sibling or explains how the combined audit relates to those narrower tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing information. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to run this whole-project audit or instead call find_outdated_resources and list_layers individually, nor whether the audit is expensive enough to warrant that choice.

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