run_quality_check

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

The description discloses the side effect of creating an asset and scanning it, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'quality check.' With no annotations, the description carries the burden but covers basic behavioral aspects.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundant information; every word adds value. Appropriate length for tool context.

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 output schema, the description should explain what results are returned. It only states 'returns the results' without further detail. Creating an asset is mentioned, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema by linking 'URL or HTML' to parameters, but does not clarify metadata or provide format 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?

Clearly states the tool runs a quality check on URL or HTML, creating an asset and returning results. Verb+resource is specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like spellcheck_asset or search_assets by focusing on quality scanning.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., spellcheck_asset, get_asset). The context of when to choose URL vs HTML is implied but not explicit, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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