audit_naming

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'READ-ONLY', 'PLAN ONLY', 'nothing is renamed by this tool', and discloses collision handling ('Collisions are skipped and reported'). This fully addresses safety and side-effect expectations.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'READ-ONLY' and 'naming audit' context, followed by specific checks, output format, and the plan-only caveat. Every phrase adds value, with no 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 covers purpose, specific audit checks, output JSON structure, collision handling, and the eventual apply step. Minor gaps remain: no mention of how sessionId is used, any prerequisites (e.g., an open model), or error conditions. Since there is no output schema, the description does provide a clear return shape, but could be slightly more comprehensive.

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 only parameter, sessionId, has no description and the description never mentions it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't explain what sessionId refers to, its format, or how it determines the target model. This is a significant gap for a tool with a single required parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'READ-ONLY naming audit over table/column/measure names'. It distinguishes itself from rename tools by explicitly saying 'PLAN ONLY - nothing is renamed by this tool', making it unmistakable from siblings like apply_rename_plan or rename_columns.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: for planning a rename, not executing one, with 'PLAN ONLY' and 'a propagating apply ... lands in a later wave'. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool for applying (e.g., apply_rename_plan), but the intent is clear.

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