audit_slug_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden. 'Audit' and 'expose' suggest a read-only diagnostic that returns candidate duplicates, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation mutates state, what permissions are needed, or how failures are surfaced.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and every phrase adds information: scope ('live state'), target ('slug'), and outcome ('expose duplicate candidates'). No wasted words.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling guidance, the description is too spare to fully support correct invocation and result interpretation. It explains what the tool does but not what the audit output looks like, when this audit should be run, or how it relates to the duplicate-resolution workflow.

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%, and the only parameter is an undocumented 'slug' string. The description repeats the term 'slug' without adding format, source, examples, or constraints, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Audit') with a clear resource ('live state of a slug') and an explicit outcome ('expose duplicate candidates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_post/find_posts (retrieval) and resolve_duplicate_posts (reselution): it is the diagnostic/screening step.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as find_posts or resolve_duplicate_posts. 'Expose duplicate candidates' implies a pre-reselution audit, but the description does not state that or exclude alternatives, so an agent must infer usage.

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