audit_codebase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope and that output includes actionable guidance, but says nothing about side effects, whether files are modified, runtime cost, or what a full audit actually returns. This is thin for a tool without annotation safety signals.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and scope come first, the coverage areas are enumerated compactly, and the final clause about actionable guidance earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a broad audit tool: it names the audit dimensions and hints at output quality. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks detail on return format, execution behavior, and when to choose this over the more specific sibling tools.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and intended meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Full audit of a codebase' with explicit coverage areas (linting, TypeScript, testing, CI/CD, docs, dependencies). It does not explicitly name or contrast the granular check_* siblings, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to call audit_codebase versus check_tests, check_linting, check_cicd, or production_readiness. The word 'Full' implies a comprehensive sweep, but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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