spawn_audit_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that the scan needs "No browser, no room, no credentials," implying a static, side-effect-free read, and explains the classification heuristic it applies. It never explicitly states that it does not modify the project or how large projects are handled, so it leaves a small gap.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences explain the classification rule and the call-site timing without filler. It is slightly dense in the middle (objectApi/engine-only require), but every 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still tells the agent what comes back (exported functions plus an auditability verdict) and what the tool requires. It omits the concrete shape/format of the result and any pagination or scale caveats, which is the main remaining 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so projectDir and auditableOnly are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's discussion of objectApi concerns the game's functions rather than this tool's parameters, and it never explains what auditableOnly=true actually filters, so it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List a game's exported functions") plus the discriminating output ("say which can be audited locally"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like spawn_audit_math and spawn_audit_ui that consume the manifest rather than discover it. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: "Run this BEFORE writing an audit manifest — it tells you what there is to check." That is a clear when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it precedes or stating when NOT to use it, so it is short of a 5.

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