Audit Project Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context: audit patterns run locally, only fix guidance fetch requires network, and potential token issues. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, sibling distinction, category list, usage examples, and troubleshooting. While slightly lengthy, each sentence adds value and the organization aids readability.

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 no output schema, description specifies return type (file:line locations). Covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage guidance, and edge cases (token limits). Could mention more about output structure, but overall complete for an audit tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description enriches parameters by listing all 18 categories plus 'all', showing usage patterns for mobile and web apps, explaining default behaviors (tokens, maxFiles, projectPath), and clarifying the token parameter's purpose.

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?

Description clearly states it scans source files for issues across 18 categories and fetches live best-practice fixes, returning file:line locations. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling gt_auto_scan by specifying 'this audits YOUR OWN source code' vs dependencies.

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 when-to-use guidance: contrasts with gt_auto_scan, gives recommended category combinations for mobile apps and web apps, and advises on GT_GITHUB_TOKEN troubleshooting when doc fetches fail.

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