cf_settings_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. The description adds value by explaining read-only nature, why checks are 'verify' not 'fail', and that it grades only edge layer. No contradiction with 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 fairly long but well-organized with front-loaded purpose. It includes bullet-like list and specific details. Could be slightly more concise, but no wasted sentences.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, description is complete. It hints at return format (severity-graded findings with reason and benign exception) and answers the core question. No gaps.

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?

Only one parameter `zone` with schema coverage 100%. Description adds context about defaulting to configured CF_ZONE, which is extra beyond schema. Baseline 3, so 4 for added value.

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 audits Cloudflare zone settings for SEO and crawl/index safety, listing specific settings checked. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cf_settings_update and cf_zone_info by focusing on audit and safety grading.

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: to check edge settings for SEO safety. It provides context about HSTS danger and 'verify' phrasing, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare directly to alternatives.

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