Audit Ghost content mechanically

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it does not crawl (acts only on supplied targets) and is bounded to 25 items per call. It stops short of explaining response shape, but an output schema exists, so that omission is acceptable.

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 sentences, no filler; the positive capability list comes first and the scope-limiting exclusions follow immediately. Every clause 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?

For a read-only, bounded inspection tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, limits, and exclusions. The remaining gap is parameter-level detail (required target fields), which is minor given the schema itself is present.

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 0% for the single 'targets' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that targets are 'exact posts or Pages' and that the cap is 25, but it never explains the required per-item fields (id, type, updated_at) that the schema enforces, leaving the caller to read the raw 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 (Inspect) and resource (exact posts or Pages) and enumerates exactly what is checked: parseability, Lexical/card inventory, alt text, metadata, lengths, links, and a Sources/Kaynaklar heading. It also explicitly separates itself from crawling or quality scoring, so an agent can distinguish it from list_posts/get_post without opening a 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?

The description gives clear context for use: it operates on 'exact' targets supplied by the caller, capped at 25, which implies a bounded diagnostic pass rather than a search or browse. It also states what it does not do (no crawl, no quality scoring, no source judging), which implicitly rules out cases where list_posts/get_post would be more appropriate, but it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition.

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