veto_onboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. Description adds behavioral context by detailing the output content (setup, architecture, etc.), but does not disclose potential side effects or required permissions beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence with a colon and bullet-like list, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output components.

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?

No output schema, but description compensates by enumerating the guide's sections. With two well-documented parameters and straightforward generation, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could explicitly state the return format.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for role and project_dir. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, though it could elaborate on how the role affects the generated guide.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a complete new-developer onboarding guide, listing specific components like setup, architecture, tests, and PR checklist. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools such as veto_doc_gen or veto_env_setup.

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 use for onboarding new developers but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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