moderate_content

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits: it applies a default-safe baseline unless a policy is set, and it returns decision, risk, categories, and reasons. It does not mention side effects or auth needs, but the tool is read-only by nature.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, and output. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use, parameter behavior, and return values. It is complete for a moderation tool, though it could mention idempotency or authentication.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'content' is the text to moderate and 'policy' optionally sets the standard, with a default conservative baseline. However, it lacks details on valid policy values or content format.

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 uses specific verb 'Decide whether' and resource 'CONTENT is safe to publish, post, or surface', clearly defining its purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like detect_injection or redact_pii by focusing on content safety for publication.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use before an agent sends or publishes generated content.' It provides context for optional policy behavior but does not specify when not to use or guide towards sibling alternatives.

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