search_audit_content

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is local and non-destructive but not strictly read-only. The description's "never edit its files" implies read-only behavior, yet is scoped only to files, leaving an agent unsure whether the tool persists audit results or other state — a meaningful ambiguity for a write-capable tool. Pagination, cost, and long-running/partial-result behavior are also unaddressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the constraint clause is doing more work than the purpose clause. It is under-specified rather than bloated, which is a different failure mode than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a paginated tool with an opaque audit_id and no annotations covering storage side effects, the definition leaves core calling questions unanswered. The complexity of the parameter set is not matched by the description's depth.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does nothing: limit, cursor, and especially audit_id (a 64-hex ID that suggests resuming or targeting a prior audit) are never mentioned. An agent cannot tell from the text whether audit_id starts a new audit or continues one.

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?

"Audit the configured content root" gives a verb and a resource, but "audit" is fuzzy — it doesn't say what is checked (links, markup, accessibility, policy compliance) or what the result represents. The name search_audit_content and the description don't clearly separate this tool from siblings like search_inspect_urls or search_verify_live.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over the other nine search_* tools, nor any prerequisite such as needing a configured content root or an existing audit_id. The only guidance offered is a constraint ("never edit its files"), not a selection rule.

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