audit-plugin

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'comprehensive' but does not detail potential side effects like applying fixes (via the `fix` parameter), destructive actions, or required permissions. The 'fix' parameter implies modification, but no warnings are given.

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?

Single sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without verbose explanations. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Adequate for a tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema. However, the description lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not clarify the behavior of the `fix` parameter or the format of the health report.

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%, so parameters are described. The description adds little beyond the schema; it provides context ('comprehensive plugin audit') but no additional semantics like default behavior of `path` or implications of `output` formats.

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 action: 'Run a comprehensive plugin audit' and lists specific components: validation, lint, tests, coverage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'validate' which likely only performs validation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate'. The description implies it is a comprehensive check but does not provide context for when a full audit is preferred over individual tools.

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