Audit Intent Spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior and that the tool performs an audit (implying read-only), but does not mention other behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, input options, and pagination. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

The description explains input and pagination but does not describe the output format or what the audit results look like. Since there is no output schema, this is a gap. It is moderately complete for a tool with simple inputs but lacks output details.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the pagination mechanism and that the response includes a next_chunk_token. This helps the agent understand how to handle long inputs effectively.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: auditing an intent spec against a specific checklist and anti-patterns. It uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('intent spec'), and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like generate_intent_spec_scaffold and assess_retrofit_level.

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 explains how to provide input (spec_text or file_path) and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is clear for parameter usage but lacks tool selection context.

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