audit_heading_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Audit heading hierarchy' with no information about whether the tool is read-only, what it checks, what it returns, or any side effects.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise compression. It omits critical details about the tool's function and parameters.

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 performs an audit and has parameters, a complete description should explain what the audit checks, how to specify the target, and what output to expect. The single sentence is far from sufficient.

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 two parameters (taskId, pathname) but the description provides no explanation of their meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not.

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 'Audit heading hierarchy' identifies a specific resource (heading hierarchy) and a verb (audit), but it is vague about what aspects are audited (e.g., heading level order, missing h1, skipping levels). It does not clearly distinguish from sibling audit tools like audit_metadata or audit_page_seo beyond the topic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative audit tools. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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