audit_compiler_rules

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The word 'Audits' implies a read-only operation, and the examples indicate the kind of checks performed. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies files, requires specific permissions, or reports results, nor what the return format is. It provides some value beyond the schema but lacks rich behavioral context, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and purpose, with inline examples that add value without verbosity. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content. This is a model of conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the audit is delivered. It only states that it 'checks' for violations, leaving the result unspecified. With two parameters fully documented, the missing output behavior makes the description incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool. A score of 2 reflects this gap.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (file_path and component_name), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds context by referring to 'React component file' and 'component to audit', but does not add syntax or format details. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Audits' and a clear resource 'React component file', and states the exact purpose: checking for violations of compiler memoization safety guidelines. It provides concrete examples (Date.now(), Math.random(), etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on rendering, profiling, or remediation. This is a clear and differentiated purpose.

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 when to use the tool—when you need to audit a component for memoization safety—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No comparisons with sibling tools like 'suggest_memoization' or 'analyze_compiler_efficacy' are provided, leaving the choice to the agent. This is a clear but non-explicit usage context, so it earns a mid-range score.

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