audit_kotlin_codebase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Audits' clearly implies a read-only analysis and the description specifies what is checked, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, handling of invalid input, or what happens after the audit completes.

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?

A single, dense sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every audit category listed is relevant and earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description adequately explains the purpose and audit scope, but with no output schema and no annotations it should also clarify what the tool returns and how 'fileType' changes the audit behavior. Without that, an agent must infer how to interpret the results.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'code' and 'fileType' already described. The description adds useful context about the kinds of problems found but does not substantially add meaning to the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audits') with a clear resource ('Kotlin code') and enumerates concrete audit categories such as Compose performance anti-patterns, coroutine leaks, and blocking calls on Dispatchers.Main. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling audit tools like audit_kotlin_security and audit_kotlin_accessibility.

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 implies a clear use case: run this when analyzing Kotlin code for Compose/coroutine/architecture issues. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the enumerated scope plus sibling tool names provide enough contextual guidance.

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