audit_rn

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behaviors: flags issues, rewards patterns, concatenates source, returns same shape as audit_page. No contradictions; adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured: main purpose first, then list of checks, rewards, scope limitations. Slightly verbose but front-loaded and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema), description covers behavior thoroughly, including edge cases for color_scheme. References return shape via audit_page sibling, which is helpful but not fully self-contained.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context: source concatenation, profile search behavior, project binding and note_assessments, color_scheme suppression of dark-mode check. Adds meaning beyond schema.

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 it audits React Native/Expo source against iOS and Android conventions, listing specific checks. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'RN-native checks only' and referencing audit_ios_screen. Verb 'Audit' and resource 'React Native/Expo source' are precise.

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 use for RN source auditing and explicitly excludes web/CSS or SwiftUI rules. It provides context for when not to use and mentions sibling tool audit_ios_screen. No explicit alternatives but clear scope.

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