audit_nuxt_migration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool 'detects' issues but does not disclose whether it modifies files, the output format, side effects, or expected runtime. Given the absence of annotations, more detail is needed for safe and effective use.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and lists key detection targets. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any redundant or unnecessary words.

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 the simplicity of parameters and absence of output schema, the description provides a basic overview but lacks details on the audit results, how to interpret them, and any default behavior when no configPath is provided. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for effective usage.

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%, with both parameters (module, configPath) already described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. As per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: auditing a Nuxt codebase for migration issues from version 2 to 4. It specifies the verb 'audit' and the resource 'source codebase', and lists specific legacy patterns it detects (Options API, Vuex, SCSS, RxJS, mixins), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., audit_mixins, audit_vuex_stores). No context is provided about prerequisites, expected workflow, or which tool to choose for specific scenarios. This omission forces the agent to infer usage without direction.

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