content-audit

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only; never mutates', which is essential for behavioral transparency. However, it does not mention potential side effects like processing time or network usage, though the tool is relatively simple.

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 numbered rules and clear sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only assurance. While somewhat lengthy, the details are necessary for the tool's complexity.

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 description explains what the tool does and what to do after, but it does not specify the format of the output report (e.g., list of violations). Given the complexity and absence of an output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

All three parameters are described with context beyond the schema, explaining how they are used in the audit (e.g., actorIdentifiers scan actors and their embedded items). The default behavior when no parameters are given is also clarified.

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 identifies the tool as a finishing check for D&D 5e content, scanning for four specific authoring-quality rules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being read-only and audit-focused.

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 explicitly states when to run (before declaring a build done), how to target specific entities (actorIdentifiers, itemFolders, worldItemIds), and what to do after (fix and re-run). This provides clear usage context.

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