omnistate_audit

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that test suites may run (a side effect) and that anti-laziness gates are checked, but says nothing about what happens on failure, whether the audit blocks progress or mutates state, or what the result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause carries meaning. It is dense but slightly under-explained for a tool that can execute tests, though not padded.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain failure semantics and result shape. It does not, leaving an agent unsure how to interpret a failed audit or whether it gates the workflow.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema (files with git-status fallback, run_tests default true). The description adds no semantics beyond that, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('current modifications') and enumerates three check categories (scope boundaries, anti-laziness gates, test suites). It is distinguishable from siblings like omnistate_inspect_diff and omnistate_status, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this validates changes somewhere in the omnistate workflow. The description never states when to call it versus omnistate_status, omnistate_inspect_diff, or omnistate_finish, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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