project_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses detected issue categories and return format but does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, performance impact, or safety profile. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the main action ('scan project directory') and then lists specific issues. It is efficient but slightly run-on as a single long sentence. One sentence earns its place.

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?

Tool has no output schema, so description should explain output format. It mentions a list with severity but omits details like object structure or property names. Parameter descriptions are clear but output remains ambiguous. Adequate but with gaps.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., severity filter and project path are already clear). Baseline 3 applies as no extra value is provided.

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?

Description clearly states it scans a project directory for code quality issues like hardcoded passwords, absolute paths, SQL errors, and CSS variable anomalies. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., browser audits, security scans) by focusing on static code analysis of a project directory.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like 'css_var_check' or 'security_scan'. The description only lists what it checks, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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