find_missing_docstrings

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

The description gives no information about side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. The word 'Audit' implies non-destructive, but this is not explicit, and with no annotations, the burden falls entirely on the description.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Audit' and the core functionality. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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?

While the description conveys the main function and outcome (coverage percentage), it lacks detail on the output format, how the audit is performed, and what 'include_private' entails. This leaves gaps in understanding, given the simple schema.

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 schema has no descriptions for parameters (target_dir, include_private). The description mentions 'directory' indirectly but does not explain either parameter in detail, especially include_private. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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: to audit Python files for missing docstrings and calculate coverage percentage. It specifies the verb 'Audit', the resource 'Python files', and the scope (modules, classes, functions), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, use cases, or exclusions, offering no explicit usage context.

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