audit_rate_limiting

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with by using verbs like 'detects' and 'identifies.' The description adds context on what is audited but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permissions, error conditions, or limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 parameter set and rich annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., list of findings, JSON report), which is not provided by an output 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?

The sole parameter 'projectPath' is fully described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the project root directory.' The description adds no further meaning or constraints beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Audit rate limiting and caching patterns.' It then enumerates specific audits (e.g., detecting rate limiting packages, GET endpoints without caching), making the purpose distinct from sibling audit tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other audit tools (e.g., audit_auth_flow, audit_performance). The description implies its focus on rate limiting and caching, but does not provide criteria for selection or exclusion.

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