d2r_mod_audit

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

The description mentions writing markdown reports to a directory, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or the exact output format. With no annotations provided, the description should cover more behavioral traits.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, side effects (e.g., file creation), and prerequisites (e.g., mod must be extracted). It only covers basic parameter usage.

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 description adds meaning to all 4 parameters (skills, items, audit_all, output_dir) beyond the schema, including defaults and the override behavior of audit_all. However, it lacks details like allowed values for output_dir or error handling.

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 states it audits vanilla skills and items and writes markdown reports. This is a clear specific verb and resource. However, it could be more explicit about what 'audit' entails to distinguish from sibling mod 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like d2r_mod_diff or d2r_mod_build. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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