mkt_audit

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does deliver the single most decision-relevant fact: 只读 (read-only), so the agent knows this will not mutate the repo. Beyond that it says nothing about access requirements, rate limits, or how long a multi-dimension audit takes, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single compact line: the resource and scope come first, the read-only guarantee last. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical list is dense enough that the sentence is slightly hard to parse at a glance.

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?

For a one-parameter audit tool with no output schema and no annotations, listing the six check dimensions is genuinely useful and gives a sense of what comes back. What is missing is the input format for 'repo' and any indication of whether the result is a score, a report, or per-dimension verdicts.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'repo' is a bare string with no format hint; the description never clarifies whether it expects 'owner/name', a URL, or a bare name. With one undocumented param the description should compensate and does not.

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 names a specific verb+resource (GitHub 仓库体检 / repo audit) and enumerates the six check areas it covers (基础/社区健康/releases/贡献者集中度/AI-readiness/Scorecard), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling mkt_scorecard, which is also named as one of its own sub-checks and creates mild ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this versus mkt_scorecard or mkt_retro_scan, and no prerequisites (public vs private repo access, token needs) are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the enumerated check areas.

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