pre_commit_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions '6-pass structured audit' and 'cross-references anti-patterns,' giving some insight. However, it does not disclose whether the audit modifies anything, what the output looks like, or potential side effects (e.g., blocking actions). More details on behavior would be beneficial.

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 concise with a clear trigger instruction, a one-sentence purpose, and a parameter description. It uses formatting (bold, emoji) effectively and has no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the most important usage guidance.

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?

The description lacks information about the output or how to handle results. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not mention what the audit returns or what action to take afterward. For a pre-commit audit, agents would benefit from knowing the outcome.

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%. The description adds basic meaning by stating 'diff_summary: Description of the code changes,' but it does not specify format, length, or examples. For a single parameter, this provides minimal guidance 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 clearly states the tool performs a '6-pass structured audit on code changes before committing' and cross-references anti-patterns. It uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('code changes'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'audit' and 'swiss_cheese_audit' by emphasizing its pre-commit trigger.

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 explicitly says 'Call this EXACTLY ONCE right before pushing code or calling a task done.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, which would improve the score.

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