audit_find_placeholder_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It discloses the matching rules (case-insensitive, whole-string after trim), the exhaustive scan scope, and the skipped-value behavior, which gives an agent a precise model of what will and won't be flagged. It stops short of stating that the tool is purely read-only/no side effects, but the audit framing makes that clear enough that a 4 is fair.

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?

It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the match list, then the rationale, then scope and return shape. The placeholder list and the bug-pattern anecdote are somewhat long, but both earn their place by pinning down the exact matching semantics an agent needs. Minor trimming of the story would improve it.

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 is simple (zero params) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It nevertheless names the return shape ({checked, violations, items[]}) and the per-item fields, leaving nothing material about the call unspecified.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline is 4; no parameter detail is needed.

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 and resource: find SCH component parameters containing placeholder strings. It explicitly delimits scope (every parameter on every component across the project) and distinguishes itself from the sibling audit_find_missing_datasheets, which handles empty values.

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 says when to run it ('a defensive sanity check we should always run before release') and when not to worry about a case ('Skips empty values -- those are caught by other audits (e.g. audit_find_missing_datasheets)'). That is explicit routing to an alternative tool plus a clear exclusion.

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