audit_component_with_codex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains caching behavior ('Caches results by contract-surface hash so unchanged surfaces hit cache instantly; surface changes force a fresh review') and output format ('Findings reference the helix defect-class corpus (01–14)'). This is comprehensive for a read-only audit tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 explains caching, defect corpus, and appropriate usage context. It lacks explicit details about the return value format (since no output schema), but the mention of 'findings referencing defect classes' provides sufficient expectation. Compared to siblings, this is adequately complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds minor context (e.g., monorepo usage for auditsRoot) but does not significantly extend meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Run a structured codex adversarial audit against one component.' It specifies the verb (run), the resource (one component), and the method (codex adversarial audit). The caching behavior and defect corpus reference further distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 advises when to use the tool: 'Use this BEFORE shipping an extending component or migrating between helix versions.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools among the many sibling checks.

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