Audit Research Spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output content (violations tagged with canonical rule IDs), which is behavior beyond the schema, but says nothing about whether the audit is read-only, what happens if spec_path is absent, or whether a report file is written.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then three tight bullets enumerating exactly the checks. Little waste; the rule-ID list in the third bullet is dense but justified as it tells the agent what identifiers to expect.

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?

Having an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description covers the check semantics well. However, with both parameters undocumented and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent without enough to know what paths to supply or what side effects to expect.

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 0% for two parameters. The description names the 'abnt.spec.json' manifest, which hints at spec_path, but never explains what project_path points to (directory vs. manuscript file) nor what the null default for spec_path means behaviorally. An agent must guess the parameter contract.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: audits an academic manuscript against the 'abnt.spec.json' manifest, and enumerates the three concrete checks performed (objectives discussed/answered, planned chapters and minimum .bib references, canonical rule-ID violations). This clearly differentiates it from narrower siblings like check_structure and validate_citations, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 bullets imply when the tool applies (a full spec-driven compliance audit of a manuscript), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus check_structure, validate_citations, or audit_illustrations_and_tables, all of which overlap with its checks. With 17 siblings and heavy functional overlap, the missing routing guidance is a real gap.

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