anti_slop_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses specific behavioral aspects by listing the violation types it checks, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the audit is read-only, whether it modifies code, or what the output format is. This missing information is notable for a tool with no annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that lists the purpose and four concrete checks without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what the tool does but omits critical operational details such as the return format (e.g., list of violations, pass/fail), whether it is destructive, or any side effects. Given the simplicity, the missing output behavior is a clear gap, but the purpose is sufficiently precise to make the tool usable at a basic level.

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% (the codeSnippet parameter is described as 'The UI code snippet to audit against anti-slop rules'). The tool description adds general context about what the audit checks but does not provide additional meaning specifically about the parameter format or processing expectations beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Audits') with a clear resource ('UI code') and scope ('anti-AI-slop violations'), listing four concrete violation types (em-dash bans, rounded left-border cards, fake metrics). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling audit tools like accessibility_audit or audit_bilingual_accessibility.

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 when to use the tool (when auditing for anti-slop rules) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, leaving the usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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