vibe_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool performs an 'audit' but does not reveal whether it is read-only or destructive, if it modifies state, or what consequences it has. This is insufficient for safe agent decision-making.

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-loading the core purpose. However, it is too brief and omits necessary details, which reduces its actual utility.

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 (audit), zero annotation coverage, and no parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate. The output schema exists but is not referenced; the agent lacks essential behavioral and usage context.

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 0%, and the description omits any parameter details. The three parameters (ctx, files, requirements) are not explained, leaving the agent uninformed about their roles or formats.

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 performs a 'Full system audit' focusing on 'backend code quality, security, performance.' It identifies the verb 'audit' and resource 'system', and distinguishes from siblings like vibe_health by implying a broader scope. However, 'full system' is somewhat vague.

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 such as vibe_health or vibe_benchmark. No context for prerequisites, scope limitations, or exclusions is given.

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