Collect Project Findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite 'existing project-audits/v1 artifact' and the nature of output ('concise top findings'), but this is minimal additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide.

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 only two sentences and both are purposeful: the first states the tool's action and input, the second warns about redundancy. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it takes in, and its relationship to analyze_repository. It does not detail the output format or differentiate from summarize_project_audits, but overall it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema already describes 'projectAudits' as 'A project-audits/v1 artifact.' The description's mention of 'existing' adds slight emphasis but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('project-audits/v1 artifact'), and indicates the output ('concise top findings'). It also distinguishes itself from analyze_repository by noting that analyze_repository already includes this result, though it does not differentiate from other similar siblings like summarize_project_audits.

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 phrase 'analyze_repository already includes this result' provides clear guidance that this tool is redundant if analyze_repository has been used, offering a contextual exclusion. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like summarize_project_audits.

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