review_trauma_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'review', which hints at a non-mutating analysis, but does not describe what the tool returns, whether it modifies content, or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object, making it easy to parse. However, its brevity sacrifices useful detail, which is a slight drawback.

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 annotations or output schema, the description must carry the full context. It does not explain what trauma-informed review entails, what the output format is, or how the optional context parameter affects the review. This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, with both parameters (content and context) described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about how these parameters are used or their semantics, so it remains at the baseline.

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 tool's function: reviewing content for trauma-informed language. It uses a specific verb ('review') and resource ('content') with a distinct focus, differentiating it from sibling tools like review_code_safety or generate_* activities.

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 the tool is for assessing content for trauma-informed language, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling review/validation tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage context is only inferred.

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