audit_deadline_changes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses reading a local config file (side effect) and explains output buckets, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only or has other side effects. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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 structured with a summary sentence followed by detailed parameter docs and output categories. It is slightly verbose but clear and well-organized, earning its space.

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 no output schema provided but listed as present, the description explains the classification buckets. It covers purpose, parameters, and output categories. Missing error conditions or authorization details, but generally complete.

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 0%, yet the description provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters, including defaults and behavior (e.g., 'defaults to current quarter start', 'Comma-separated project shortnames'). This fully compensates for schema gaps.

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 states it audits due-date shifts and classifies them as compliant/unauthorized, with specific bucket types. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like deadline_scorecard or get_deadline_impact.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (for auditing deadline changes with classification) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. Given the large set of siblings, clearer exclusion guidance would help.

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