veto_flag_auditor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. The description adds that it is SDK-agnostic and detects custom patterns, but does not disclose details like file scope, performance impact, or limitations. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, the second explains the output classification. Highly efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the classification output. It does not detail format or structure, but for a detection tool with 3 parameters, the coverage is good. Minor gap in describing the nature of the output (e.g., list vs report).

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 each parameter is already described adequately. The description adds context about SDK-agnostic behavior relevant to the 'sdk' parameter but does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 detects specific SDK calls and custom flag patterns, and classifies flags into three actionable categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veto_dead_code by focusing specifically on feature flag usage.

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 vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or cases to avoid. It provides clear purpose but lacks situational guidance.

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