veto_bundle_advisor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context (accepts specific JSON formats, produces specific analyses) but doesn't disclose edge cases, error handling, or performance traits. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate additional transparency.

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 front-loads the purpose and lists all key analyses. No redundant information; every word adds value.

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 sufficiently explains the return value by listing analysis categories. However, it doesn't specify the output format (JSON? text? Markdown?). It also omits whether the tool reads the file from disk or expects content. Still, for a simple analysis tool with good annotations, it's mostly complete.

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% for both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the file path concept but doesn't elaborate on the stats_file format or project_dir usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema already documents parameters.

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 accepts a bundle stats file (webpack/Rollup/Vite) and outputs specific analysis: heaviest modules, duplicates, code-split candidates, CDN suggestions. This distinguishes it from sibling advisor tools like dep_advisor or sre_advisor.

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 implies usage for bundle analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dep_advisor for dependencies). No 'when not to use' or context for choosing among sibling advisors.

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