ck_token_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns word counts, token estimates, and recommendations, strongly implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, permissions, or behavioral constraints beyond the basic audit function.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs without redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 adequately covers the tool's function, return values, and parameter context given the low complexity (two optional params, no output schema). It lacks a note on safety (read-only) but remains mostly complete for an audit utility.

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 descriptive parameter comments for both 'mode' and 'project_root'. The description adds context about the purpose but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'Audit' and the specific resources 'project rule files (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, etc.) and skills' for token overhead. It differentiates from siblings like ck_budget or ck_cost_optimizer by focusing exclusively on token overhead analysis.

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 when auditing token overhead in rule files and skills, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ck_cost_optimizer or ck_context. No when-not or exclusion guidance is provided.

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