squire

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Successfully conveys prerequisite that files must be 'staged' and operational constraints of public service. Missing output format, failure modes, and whether audits are read-only vs. generating reports. Adequate but incomplete behavioral picture.

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?

Two tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy. First sentence establishes core operation; second sentence provides critical deployment context. Front-loaded with actionable verb and scope.

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?

For a 9-parameter security tool with no output schema, description establishes the core conceptual model (staging, audit surfaces) and current limitations. Absence of output description or detailed prerequisite chain prevents higher score despite good annotations in schema.

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 has 100% coverage (baseline 3). Description adds valuable conceptual framing, mapping 'secrets' and 'static' parameters to 'security-focused audit surfaces' and explaining the 'staged local files' concept that ties together 'files', 'paths', and 'config' parameters. Elevates beyond raw schema documentation.

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?

Clear verb+resource combination ('Run... security-focused audit surfaces against staged local files'). Specifies exact capabilities (secret scanning, local-config static analysis) and target (staged local files). Distinguishes from siblings like 'lint' or 'test' through explicit security focus and specific techniques mentioned.

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?

Provides implicit guidance through public service limitations ('currently means secret scanning...'), constraining expectations about available features. However, lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like 'lint' or 'deps' (noted as disabled) to guide selection, or prerequisites for staging files.

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