audit_sourcemap_match

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the validation intent but doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, what output it produces, or how misalignment is reported. This is a significant gap for a validation tool.

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 directly conveys the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite the tool's relative simplicity, the description lacks key contextual details. It doesn't clarify what 'align' means in practical terms, what happens on failure, or how results are returned. With no output schema and no annotations, users are left without a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 fully describes distDir as the path to the dist/build directory containing .js and .js.map files. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% 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 clearly states the tool's function: validating that .map files align with their compiled .js counterparts. It uses a specific verb ('validate') and precise resource ('map files in a dist directory'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on retracing or debug ID integrity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_debug_id_integrity or retrace_stack. It doesn't mention specific scenarios that warrant this validation or exclude cases handled by sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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