ca-aurait

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits. It explicitly states that MCP does not write files, call an LLM, or use Cognite certification APIs. It also describes the expected agent workflow of scoring, prompting, and applying fixes.

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 relatively long and contains some jargon (e.g., 'caps', 'Soft Flows gate') that may not be immediately clear. It is structured with line breaks but could be more concise and front-loaded with the main action.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return values (design_files, rubric) and the overall process. However, the lack of explanation for some parameters reduces completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage from descriptions, and the tool has 5 parameters. The description explains the 'analyzer_mode' parameter with its three options and hints at 'force' usage, but it does not describe 'path', 'focus', or 'workspace_root' meaningfully. This leaves a significant gap in understanding parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a workspace design/UI context pack for design-quality assessment. It specifies scanning the workspace for relevant files and returning design files and a rubric. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ca-smellit or ca-docit, which may overlap in purpose.

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 provides some usage guidance, such as using 'force' for weak signals and noting that non-Flows returns 'not_applicable'. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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