audit_codebase

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description earns credit by adding what those hints cannot: the audit is offline by default and will never enable validation commands (--run-checks) or live database access (--with-database). It stops short of disclosing runtime cost, repo-size limits, or failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding. The primary action is front-loaded and the safety constraints follow immediately, and every clause carries distinct 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?

With no output schema the description still conveys the return artifact and the two rendering options, and all four optional parameters are documented in the schema. It omits what the audit actually checks and how large a repo it can handle, minor gaps for a read-only 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already explained in the schema (base ref, path default, format enum, changed scope). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the full built-in Codebase Doctor audit on a repository') and names the artifact returned ('the evidence-backed report'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like verify_changes or explain_finding, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 default-scope statement ('Read-only and offline by default') and the two explicitly disabled modes give implicit guidance on how the tool behaves, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing advice versus verify_changes/describe_capabilities. Usage must be inferred from the schema's 'changed' flag.

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