build_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it specifies the receipt payload (coverage checked/not checked, score, finding fingerprints, SHA-256 digest over canonical body) and a confidentiality guarantee (no secret values or source text). It does not describe pagination/volume or the scope of what 'audit' inspects, keeping it from a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the return payload, followed by the confidentiality constraint. No filler, and every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 usefully covers the return shape (receipt contents plus digest) and the safety/no-secret guarantee. Parameter behavior is left to the fully documented schema, so the only remaining gap is the absence of guidance on when to choose this over sibling audit tools.

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 all three parameters (base, path, changed) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior or the base-requires-changed relationship, so the standard baseline of 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+resource: run a read-only audit and return a portable coverage receipt, then lists the receipt's contents (what was checked, score, fingerprints, SHA-256 digest). This is clear, but it never names how it differs from audit_codebase or review_changes, which also audit code, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the text alone.

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 only offers traits ('read-only', 'offline') rather than when-to-use conditions. It gives no explicit trigger, no exclusions, and never references the sibling tools (audit_codebase, review_changes, verify_intent) that an agent must choose between for auditing.

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