audit_template_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details the audit's scope (repo-wide), outputs (signals and findings), and references a related tool. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but the nature of an audit suggests no side effects.

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 informative but slightly lengthy. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists outputs and notes. While efficient, it could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 complexity of a repo-wide audit tool, the description covers return values (both per-component and synthesized findings) and mentions configuration dependency for z-index max. Without an output schema, this level of detail is adequate.

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 has one parameter 'file' with description. The description adds value by explaining its optional usage: 'Pass `file` to scope by path substring.' This context, combined with high schema coverage, justifies a score above baseline.

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 purpose: 'Repo-wide template-layer design-drift audit for Vue overlays/modals.' It specifies what it returns (per-component signals and synthesized findings) and distinguishes itself as a replacement for manual grepping of specific patterns.

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 Vue overlay/modal audits and mentions the optional file scoping. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but it clearly indicates Vue-only applicability and scope limitation.

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