Audit Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns raw artifacts (not summaries), detects supported roots, and reports unsupported ones. It also implies the output format is project-audits/v1, which is useful beyond 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action and output, and every phrase adds value. No wasted words.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect (raw artifacts, unsupported roots report). It does not fully detail the return structure, but the explicit output type and purpose make it adequate.

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 75%, and the schema already covers all parameter meanings. The description does not add detail about individual parameters beyond implying repoRoot is the base for detection. The description's reference to 'detected supported roots' adds some context but does not meaningfully enrich parameter semantics.

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 'Return' and a precise resource 'raw per-project audit artifacts', and explicitly scopes to 'all detected supported roots' plus 'report unsupported roots'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by noting a preference for analyze_repository for first-pass reviews.

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 states a concrete trigger: 'Use when a downstream specialist tool needs project-audits/v1', and provides an explicit alternative: 'for a complete first-pass review, prefer analyze_repository'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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