code_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the audit is read-only, changes nothing, reports findings via checks, and that zero findings is not proof; however, it leaves the accept/ledger actions and their state implications unclear, which matters for an 11-parameter tool with no annotation safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It efficiently communicates the core operation, immutability, and a key caution.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters, nested options, and no output schema, the description covers the high-level purpose but does not explain return format, action modes such as accept/ledger, or how findings are surfaced. The rich schema compensates for parameter documentation, but the description alone is only adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters already have documented meaning in the schema. The description mentions checks and scoping in passing but adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states a specific action and resource: a read-only review pass over files that reports findings via checks and changes nothing. It clearly distinguishes audit behavior from mutating siblings by emphasizing read-only operation, but it does not name or contrast against any specific sibling tool.

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?

It gives implied usage context by saying the pass can run on files you touched or any scope, and warns that zero findings is not proof. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus code_check, code_maintain, or other siblings, nor does it describe exclusions.

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