audit_tag_sprawl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds transparency about error tolerance ('tolerates per-kind upstream errors with notes') and caching behavior ('refresh' parameter), which is valuable beyond the 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?

Description is concise with three well-structured sentences. Uses formatting (bold, backticks) for readability. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately lists all major output components (inventory, dupes, set_only, top-N) and mentions error handling. For a composite report tool, this is sufficiently complete, though a note on performance with refresh would improve it.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions. The description adds no new parameter details beyond what the schema provides, 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 explicitly states it is a 'Composite tag-hygiene report' listing specific outputs like inventory, duplicate suspects, set_only flags, and usage distribution. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_triggers_by_tag.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'The right starting point for tag-cleanup work' and directs users to find_triggers_by_tag for rule-specific queries. This clearly delineates when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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