ca-sonarit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses behaviors: 'MCP does not write files, call an LLM, or run SonarQube,' and outlines the iterative process. It also explains the analyzer_mode options. It does not explicitly mention destructive actions or auth needs, but the tool appears read-only, so this is acceptable.

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 purpose but becomes verbose with procedural details. While informative, it could be more concise. Sentences are long, and some information (like the default max 3 rounds) could be streamlined.

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 tool's complexity and 0% schema coverage, the description should cover all 4 parameters. It explains focus and analyzer_mode but omits path and workspace_root. The output is listed but not fully detailed. The description provides a good overview of the workflow but lacks complete parameter documentation.

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' (optional free-form guidance) and 'analyzer_mode' (none/lint/all) well. However, 'path' and 'workspace_root' are not described. The description adds value for some parameters but not all.

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: 'Fast primary-file context pack for SonarQube-style quality-gate preparation.' It uses a specific verb (context pack) and resource (quality-gate prep). It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'ca-smellit' by noting it is not a depth campaign.

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 explicitly provides usage guidelines: it states when to use ('for quality-gate preparation'), when not to use ('Not a smellit quality-depth campaign — use ca-smellit for that'), and describes the workflow (source-first prep prompt, all-or-nothing proceed, evidence-gated improve→recheck). It also explains that MCP does not run SonarQube.

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