depguard_workspace_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the enumeration of specific auto-execution files, classification heuristics (INFO/WARN/HIGH), and FP-averse approach. Does not disclose performance or other side effects, but sufficient for understanding behavior.

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 front-loaded with the mandatory usage instruction and is informative. While slightly long (4 sentences), every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but efficient overall.

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 tool's complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it explains purpose, usage timing, methodology, classification details, and threat context. No gaps for an agent to understand how and why to use it.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter. The description adds context about mandatory usage timing but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 audits a repository for auto-executing files upon workspace opening, with specific verb 'enumerates' and resource 'workspace auto-execution'. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools like depguard_audit by focusing on workspace-specific security checks.

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?

Explicitly states it must be called after cloning and before opening any IDE or running direnv allow, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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