audit_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Detect' strongly implies a read-only operation; however, it does not explicitly state that no modifications or side effects occur. The description gives sufficient functional context but stops short of stating non-destructive behavior.

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, consisting of two sentences that deliver purpose and usage without fluff. The parenthetical examples add useful specificity without unnecessary elaboration.

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's simplicity, the description covers the essential context: what it detects, when to use it, and why it matters (avoiding pipeline mismatches). It does not describe the return format, but that is not critical for a detection tool and the output schema exists separately.

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?

The only parameter, project_dir, is not elaborated in the description at all. While the name suggests a file path, there is no mention of expected format, whether it should point to a root folder or a specific file, or any related constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('engine, version and render pipeline of a game project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on detection rather than mutation or retrieval.

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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Call this BEFORE recommending or importing assets.' This provides a direct usage trigger and sets expectations for preconditions, leaving no ambiguity about when it should be invoked.

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