audit_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool audits and recommends, but it does not clarify whether it modifies files, side effects, or whether it is read-only. The lack of detail on what 'audit' entails (e.g., returns report, writes files) is a significant gap.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and resource. Every sentence adds value: first states the audit, second states the recommendation. 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the audit returns (e.g., list of files, actionable recommendations). It omits details on output format, making it incomplete for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'module'. The description adds an example but no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool audits Vue components for Options API and SCSS usage and recommends migration to Composition API and Atomic CSS. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools by focusing on components and specific migration targets.

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 implies usage for auditing components in preparation for migration, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'audit_mixins' or 'audit_deprecated_modules'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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