acc_audit_folder_naming

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds valuable behavioral context: validation is against ISO 19650, ACC's conformingStatus is reported when a naming standard is active, and output includes stats plus non-conforming files with reasons. This goes beyond simple 'read-only' to describe the actual audit 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 two sentences with a trailing phrase, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Audit an ACC folder...'). Every clause contributes: method (folder tree), standard (ISO 19650), special behavior (conformingStatus), return values, and use case. No fluff.

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?

There is an output schema (not shown), so return values need not be detailed. The description covers purpose, standard, conditions ('when a naming standard is active'), and use case. Minor gap: does not mention how config_id relates to the audit, but the schema documents that. Complete enough for an audit tool with good annotations.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 function: auditing an ACC folder tree for naming compliance against ISO 19650. It distinguishes from siblings like 'acc_validate_names' (which likely validates individual names) by specifying a folder-level audit that returns compliance stats and non-conforming file lists.

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 indicates when to use it: as a routine standards/metadata QA check for daily/weekly CDE review. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on auditing (rather than validation or configuration) implies the appropriate context relative to sibling tools.

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