Alcove

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses scanning locations (alcove private docs, project repo public docs), suggestion logic (generating public from internal), and critical safety protocol (requires user confirmation, never auto-executes). Minor gap: doesn't explicitly declare whether it performs writes or is read-only analysis, though 'suggests' and 'Never auto-execute' strongly imply read-only reporting.

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?

Efficiently structured with front-loaded purpose, numbered scan locations, and capitalized safety constraints (NEVER, IMPORTANT). Four sentences cover scope, actions, prohibitions, and execution protocol with zero waste.

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?

Adequate for a zero-parameter analysis tool. Implies return value ('findings', 'suggestions') without explicit output schema. Covers essential complexity (dual-repo logic, privacy boundaries, user confirmation requirements). Missing only explicit return format details.

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?

Zero parameters present (empty schema), meeting the baseline score of 4 per rubric. Description correctly omits parameter discussion as none exist; schema coverage is vacuously 100%.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('project docs') with explicit scope (both alcove and project repository). Distinguishes from siblings like search_project_docs or validate_docs by specifying the cross-repository comparison and suggestion generation behavior.

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?

Provides explicit behavioral constraints ('NEVER suggests exposing raw internal docs', 'Never auto-execute') that function as usage guardrails. Lacks explicit comparison to siblings (e.g., when to use vs. validate_docs), but the constraints effectively define when-not-to-use boundaries.

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