content_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the execution mechanism ('runs ContentAudit commandlet') and the nature of the task (finding costly/problematic assets), suggesting a read-only analysis. However, it doesn't state whether the audit modifies assets, requires specific permissions, or produces a detailed report, leaving important behavioral traits unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and execution. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous information. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It covers what the tool does and how it executes, but it does not clarify what the agent should expect as a result (e.g., a list of assets, console output, or a report). This gap prevents full contextual completeness for an agent invoking the tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters (empty object), so parameter semantics are not applicable. The description correctly omits any parameter explanation. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema details.

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's purpose: 'Run content audit to find costly or problematic assets'. It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('content audit'), and the additional parenthetical 'runs ContentAudit commandlet' adds technical specificity. This distinguishes it from siblings like validate_assets or fix_redirectors.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through its purpose (finding costly/problematic assets), but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools. The user is left to infer when 'content_audit' is preferable to tools like validate_assets or consolidate_assets.

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