audit_esm_compatibility

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states only the scanning action but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies files, requires permissions, or returns a report. Lack of behavioral details beyond purpose.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part is necessary: verb, resource, patterns, environment. Perfectly concise.

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?

For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function adequately. Minor gap: it does not mention output format (e.g., list of issue files) or side effects, but given low complexity, it is nearly complete.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so no param info is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about what patterns are audited, but since no parameters exist, it cannot add parameter semantics. A score of 4 reflects that the description meets baseline without deficiency.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'audit' and resource 'source codebase for CommonJS patterns', listing concrete patterns (require, module.exports, __dirname) and target environment (Nuxt 3/4 ESM-only). It clearly distinguishes from sibling audit tools that focus on different aspects like API migration or components.

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 use when migrating to ESM in Nuxt 3/4, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. An agent can infer context from the purpose, but no direct guidance on selection among sibling audit tools.

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