Audit Project Code

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that only fix guidance fetch requires network, and audit patterns run locally. No contradictions; the description enhances transparency about network dependency and local execution.

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: first sentence summarizes core purpose, then lists categories, then gives usage examples for different scenarios, then troubleshooting tip. Every sentence is meaningful, and the description is appropriately sized—not verbose, not too brief.

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 no output schema, the description clearly states 'Returns file:line locations.' It covers all input parameters, usage scenarios, and failure modes. For a tool with moderate complexity (4 params, no nested objects), this is complete and 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds significant value: explains categories list and usage (e.g., mobile vs web combos), clarifies default for categories (['all']), and provides context for tokens and maxFiles. This goes beyond the schema to aid correct invocation.

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?

Clearly states 'Scan source files for code issues across 18 categories, then fetch live best-practice fixes from official docs. Returns file:line locations.' This is a specific verb+resource+output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gt_auto_scan which likely does automated scanning without best-practice fetch.

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 explicit guidance: using 'all' for broad questions, specific category combinations for mobile vs web apps. Also explains troubleshooting for failed doc fetches (set GT_GITHUB_TOKEN) and notes that audit patterns run locally. This helps the agent decide when and how to use the tool.

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