ck_token_audit

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool returns specific analysis outputs (word counts, token estimates, etc.), which aligns with the annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as failure modes or performance characteristics, so the description adds only marginal value beyond annotations.

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 front-loads the primary action and lists the outputs. It is concise and well-structured, though it could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing brevity.

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 existence of an output schema (which likely details return values), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and outputs. It mentions specific filenames and audit modes, providing sufficient context for an agent to understand the scope. However, it lacks mention of performance or file count limits, but these are not critical for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'mode' and 'project_root', so the schema already explains the parameters. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters; it mentions the overall audit scope but not the specific mode options. Hence, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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', the resources (project rule files and skills), and what it returns (word counts, token estimates, duplicate detection, optimization recommendations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on token overhead of rule files and skills, which is a unique purpose.

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 use for auditing token overhead but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ck_cost_optimizer or ck_budget. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description.

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