Analysiere Content-Performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it analyzes content, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether any modifications, side effects, permissions, or output formats are involved. Significant behavioral details are missing for a tool with no safety 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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose without redundancy.

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 (one parameter) and the description gives a high-level overview with examples. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what kind of results are returned or the full scope of content checks, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 100% for the single parameter postId, which is fully described as 'Post/Page ID'. The description itself adds no additional parameter guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool analyzes content for performance problems (image sizes, embeds, etc.), using a specific verb ('analysiert') and resource ('Content'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like seo_analyze_content and perf_check_images, which target SEO and images specifically.

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 the tool is used for content performance analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like perf_check_images or perf_analyze_plugins. Clear context exists but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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