audit_semantics

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool analyzes and suggests migrations but does not clarify if the tool modifies tokens (destructive side effects) or is read-only. It also omits permissions, rate limits, or performance characteristics, making behavior partially opaque.

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 convey the purpose, scope, and output without any wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, then elaborates on capabilities.

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 the complexity of auditing multiple aspects of semantics, the description covers the main domains and output format. However, it lacks context on whether the tool is read-only, how to interpret the health score, and prerequisites (e.g., must have pre-defined tokens). No output schema exists to supplement return values, so the description could be more thorough.

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?

Both parameters ('skipRules' and 'pathPrefix') are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('semantic token set'), listing concrete analysis areas (naming compliance, property-class separation, etc.) and output (health score and report). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'validate_tokens' (syntactic validation) and 'analyze_coverage' (coverage gaps only).

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 implies the tool is for comprehensive semantic audits but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'validate_tokens' or 'audit_design'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling names alone.

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