audit_prisma

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral detail that the tool analyzes (parses, cross-references, suggests, checks) without contradicting annotations. This provides useful extra context about the tool's non-destructive analysis.

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 efficiently lists all key actions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant words. Every part is necessary.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers the core functionality well. It could mention the output format (e.g., suggestions or report), but the current description is still fairly complete for agent use.

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 a single parameter 'projectPath' having a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it audits Prisma schema and database usage, with specific actions like parsing schema.prisma, cross-referencing calls, finding missing models/fields, suggesting indexes, and checking migration drift. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_migrations or audit_auth_flow.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose and scope (Prisma schema and database auditing), providing implicit context for when to use it. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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