inspect_quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety posture is covered. The description adds that it returns a structured quality report, but discloses nothing about what is checked, limits (e.g., 256KB max code), or how aliases behave, so it is only modestly additive.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the stage marker and alias note. No wasted text, though it is perhaps under-developed for a 10-parameter tool.

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 read-only inspection tool with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, this is adequate but thin: no output schema exists and the description only gestures at 'a structured quality report'. Usage routing and behavioral boundaries are not fully covered.

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% and each parameter (code, html, markup aliases, environment, densityProfile, semanticProfile, enforceFsm) is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for full coverage applies.

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 ('Audit') and resource ('HTML/Astro markup') plus the return type ('structured quality report'), and flags itself as an alias of basecoat_quality_inspector. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like validate_markup or validate_composition, leaving the boundaries somewhat implicit.

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 '[STAGE 4: QUALITY AUDIT]' prefix implies where this fits in a pipeline, which is useful workflow context. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs validate_markup/validate_composition guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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