audit_desktop_project

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it: it never says whether the audit is read-only, whether it writes reports, what permissions it needs, or what the caller receives back. The '[Alias Kompatibilitas]' label implies a legacy/compatibility relationship but leaves its behavioral implications unexplained.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the bracketed compatibility marker leads. It is efficient, though a little terse for a tool with no other documentation backing it.

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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema audit tool, the description covers what is inspected but not how results are delivered, whether findings are blocking, or how it relates to its sibling audit tool. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to probe for.

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%, with both optional parameters fully documented (platform enum list, project path default). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (mengaudit) and resource (project directory) and names the concrete checks: architecture compliance, Tauri v2 configuration, and native macOS styling. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling audit_apple_project, despite the 'Alias Kompatibilitas' prefix hinting at an overlap.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus audit_apple_project or when it should be avoided. The only guidance present (platform auto-detect, default working directory) is already carried by the schema, not by the description.

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