content-audit

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

Clearly states 'read-only; never mutates' and outlines what it checks. With no annotations provided, the description fully conveys non-destructive behavior and the nature of violations (placeholder icons, fudge language, missing loot). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with bullet points for the three rules and a clear call to action. It is slightly verbose but every sentence provides necessary information. Front-loading with purpose and constraints works well.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what findings to expect (violations of rules 7,8,9). It provides enough context for an agent to understand the audit scope and how to fix issues (though fixing details are not exhaustive).

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as 'target what you built' and behavior when no target is provided (full sweep). This helps the agent understand how to use parameters effectively.

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 it is a 'finishing check for authored content' that scans for three specific rules (8,7,9) and reports violations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a read-only audit tool focused on quality checks.

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?

Includes explicit guidance: 'RUN THIS before declaring a build done' and explains targeting options (actorIdentifiers, itemFolders, worldItemIds) or full sweep. It suggests iterative fixing and re-running. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.

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