get_tech_debt

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by detailing the return structure (JSON with modules, grade, score, factors, recommendations) and explicitly stating 'Read-only', reinforcing safety. Lacks details on caching or refresh impact beyond schema.

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?

Description is very concise, using 4-5 short sentences that front-load the core purpose, include the output format, and provide usage guidance without redundancy or waste.

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 no output schema, description provides the return format and lists constituent factors. It omits details about score scaling, recommendation derivation, or prerequisites (e.g., index state), but these are not critical for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema already describes both parameters (module, refresh) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets baseline but adds no extra value for parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it provides a per-module tech debt score combining multiple factors (complexity, coupling, test coverage, git churn) and includes actionable recommendations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics.

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 recommends use for architecture review and prioritizing cleanup, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or directly name alternatives, though the sibling list implies single-factor tools for different needs.

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