veto_flag_auditor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it is 'SDK-agnostic' and detects patterns, but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long, efficient, and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant information.

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?

The description covers the tool's main purpose and functionality. However, with no output schema, it would be helpful to describe the return format or what the classification output looks like. Still, it is reasonably complete for a read-only analysis tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It only mentions the tool's functionality, 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 it is a feature flag auditor that detects SDK calls and custom patterns, and classifies flags into categories. It uses a specific verb ('detects') and resource ('feature flag auditor'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focus on feature flag auditing.

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 auditing feature flags but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like veto_dead_code or veto_clone_detector. There is no mention of when not to use it or what context it is best suited for.

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