audit_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a read operation ('Reads') and the audit action, but does not mention side effects, error handling, or whether it modifies anything. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is direct and free of filler. It front-loads the core action and purpose, earning every word.

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 low parameter count and an output schema that likely describes return values, the description sufficiently covers the tool's core behavior. It could mention prerequisites or limitations (e.g., file must be in workspace), but overall it is complete enough for a simple tool.

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 schema describes 'file_path' as a path on disk. The description adds meaning by specifying 'workspace file' and 'existing', which constrains the parameter beyond the generic schema. This extra context is valuable.

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 uses specific verbs 'Reads' and 'audits' with a clear resource ('existing workspace file') and specifies the audit against 'Senior SDE AST rules'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool by naming the specific rule set, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 auditing files against AST rules, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over the sibling 'check_code_quality' or any exclusions. Usage context is present but not explicit.

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