Audit Project Db

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds value by detailing the audit scope (e.g., foreign key violations, circular dependencies), which is not in annotations. However, it does not mention what the output looks like or whether the audit could be resource-intensive, missing opportunities for deeper behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a concise list of audited items. There is zero wasted wording, and it is easy to scan and understand.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect as a result (e.g., a report, a list of issues, or a pass/fail status). It does not. It also omits how the optional 'project' parameter scopes the audit. For a simple tool with strong annotations, the description is adequate but leaves these gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional 'project' parameter, which is described as an 'Optional project identifier.' The description does not add any additional meaning about how this parameter affects the audit scope, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.

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 the specific verb 'audit' and clearly identifies the resource (project's database) and enumerates the specific checks performed: physical integrity, foreign key violations, orphaned edges, circular dependencies, and contradictions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_graph or detect_contradictions, which are more narrow in scope.

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 usage when a holistic database integrity check is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_graph or verify_audit_chain. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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