audit_project

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

The description clearly explains that the tool only reports findings and scans two locations, suggesting actions but not executing them. It also includes an important caution about not exposing raw internal docs. However, without annotations, it could be more explicit about being read-only, though the description implies it.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, but it is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. A minor trim could achieve a 5.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, and caveats. There is no missing information for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds significant meaning by detailing the two scan locations and the tool's reporting nature, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 audits documentation health across two specific locations (alcove doc-repo and project repo). It uses a specific verb 'audit' and resource 'documentation health', and distinguishes from sibling tools like init_project and configure_project by noting it only reports findings.

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 states when to use the tool (when user wants to know missing/outdated/misplaced docs) with example queries. It also provides guidance on what not to do (never suggest exposing raw internal docs) and directs the agent to always ask the user before proceeding with init_project or configure_project.

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