ca-commentit

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states 'MCP does not write files or call an LLM,' clarifies the agent's role (plans edits, asks Proceed), and specifies output structure. It is transparent about limitations (in-source only, no markdown).

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 longer than necessary but every sentence adds value: purpose, parameters, behavior, and workflow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (comment_scorecard, apply_policy) and the agent workflow. However, it lacks detail on parameters 'path' and 'workspace_root', leaving some ambiguity for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'focus' (trailing text echoed) and 'analyzer_mode' (none, lint, all). However, 'path' and 'workspace_root' are only implied by 'single-file' context and not described in detail.

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 it is for 'scorecard-guided in-source comment authoring' with specific outputs (comment_scorecard, apply_policy). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the purpose is specific and actionable.

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 mentions analyzer modes and default skip of heavy analyzers, providing implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like ca-docit or ca-checkit, nor does it list exclusions.

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