check_placeholder_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates scanning for specific content types and references Guideline 2.1, suggesting a compliance check. However, it does not disclose whether modifications occur, permissions needed, or the exact nature of the output, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, dense sentence that efficiently lists scanned items. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though a slightly more structured list could improve readability.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview of functionality. It references a relevant guideline and typical use cases. However, it omits details about the output format or whether results are returned as a list or summary.

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 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'projectPath' is well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no further detail about the parameter, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 scans source and Info.plist for specific placeholder content like lorem ipsum, test keys, and template tokens. The verb 'Scan' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on submissions or app listings.

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 use before review to check for unwanted content, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare to sibling tools like preflight or explain_guideline, leaving the agent to infer suitable scenarios.

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