veto_debt_register

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

The description states the tool analyzes and produces output, consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. With annotations already declaring read-only safety, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of authentication or error handling).

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by prioritization logic and output summary. No wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a brief summary of the output (debt type, location, suggested agent), but lacks detail on structure or fields. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., it mentions analysis logic but not parameter details).

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: 'Analyzes code quality + git commit frequency to produce a ranked technical debt register.' It specifies the resource (technical debt register) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veto_code_review by focusing on debt and prioritization.

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 analyzing technical debt but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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