shipcheck.audit

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

The description adds the 'read-only' qualifier, which aligns with the readOnlyHint=true annotation, providing helpful reinforcement. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as what specific checks are performed, error handling, or output format expectations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Audit a local Node/TypeScript package') followed by scope ('for npm publish readiness') and safety qualifier ('read-only'). Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only audit tool with good annotations, the description provides adequate context about purpose and scope. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe what the audit returns (e.g., success/failure indicators, specific issues found), leaving some uncertainty about the tool's complete behavior.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional semantic context.

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 specific action ('Audit') and resource ('a local Node/TypeScript package'), with explicit scope ('for npm publish readiness') and safety qualifier ('read-only'). It distinguishes from potential siblings by focusing on audit rather than explanation or preview functions.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('for npm publish readiness'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (explainFailure, packPreview). The 'read-only' qualifier helps establish appropriate use cases.

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