audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It conveys a read-only analysis purpose but does not disclose whether modifications occur, permission requirements, or performance implications. Basic transparency is present but lacks depth.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It is concise and to the point, though slightly more information could be included without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report or list of issues). It only describes checks but not the output format or behavior, leaving agents uninformed about the result.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds 'missing coverage' as a check type, which does not appear in the schema's list (which includes 'god_files' instead). This discrepancy may mislead agents.

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 verb 'audit' and the resource 'codebase', listing specific quality issues (dead code, high complexity, missing coverage, circular deps). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check' or 'complexity' by focusing on a comprehensive audit with multiple check types.

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 usage for code quality auditing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'check', 'complexity', or 'diff_impact'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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