project_audit

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only mentions that it runs npm/composer audit without detailing side effects (e.g., network access, read-only nature, potential runtime duration) or what the output contains. The term 'Kiểm tra' suggests a read-only operation but is not explicit.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core function without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers the main purpose. However, without an output schema or annotations, it lacks information about return values, safety profile, or invocation context, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'tool' parameter, which includes an enum and description. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 checks project security and quality via npm audit and composer audit. It uses a specific action verb ('Kiểm tra' = check) and names the exact tools, distinguishing it from siblings like get_dependencies or code_metrics.

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 implies usage for security/quality checks but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks direct guidance on choosing between this and related tools like dependency listing.

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