audit_subject_line

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what the tool checks and its binary output. Since this is an audit function, it implicitly signals a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not explicitly mention auth, rate limits, or lack of mutation, but for a tool of this type, the description is transparent enough. A 5 would require explicit side-effect statements, but the nature of 'audit' makes them unlikely.

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, information-dense sentence that lists the audit criteria and output. Every word adds value, with no redundant phrases. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and simple boolean output, the description provides all necessary information: input (subject line), what it checks, and the result format. The sibling tools are unrelated, so no further context is needed. The description is complete for its complexity level.

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?

The schema only defines a single 'subject' string parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that 'subject' refers to an email subject line, which adds necessary context. However, it doesn't add details about length limits, encoding, or other constraints. Since there is only one parameter and the schema is minimal, the description partially compensates but not fully, scoring a 3.

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 specific action ('Audit an email subject line') and the specific criteria being evaluated (mobile truncation length, all-caps, spam phrases, fake Re:/Fwd:, specificity). It also states the output format ('Returns PASS/NEEDS WORK'), fully distinguishing it from sibling tools which focus on packs, growth loops, and other unrelated functions.

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 clear use: to audit an email subject line for the listed issues. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the sibling tools are clearly different domains (packs, growth loops, metrics), so the appropriate context is evident. The omission of explicit 'use when' statements prevents a 5, but the context is clear.

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