ca-smellit

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: what the tool does (packages context), what it does NOT do (write files, call LLM, run post-apply gate), details about the scorecard (invented_metrics always false), analyzer modes, and soft caps on additional calls.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides detailed behavioral context. While it is lengthy, each sentence adds necessary information for correct agent usage. It is well-structured but could be slightly more 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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (scorecard contents, architecture hints, etc.) and the expected agent workflow. It covers all critical aspects for correct invocation and follow-up actions.

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 partially explains analyzer_mode ('none (default, fast heuristic scorecard) | lint (quick) | all (full suite)') but does not explain path, focus, or workspace_root. This adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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: to provide a 'current-file context pack for quality-depth + architecture-aware improvement prompts'. It specifies what is packaged (excerpt, findings, scorecard, etc.) and distinguishes itself from the sibling ca-sonarit.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs ca-sonarit: 'For Sonar/CI gate prep and optional report-driven iterate, use ca-sonarit instead.' It also outlines the workflow for the agent, including authoring a prompt, asking all-or-nothing proceed, applying splits, and running a post-apply gate.

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