fix_redirectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions running the 'FixUpRedirects commandlet', but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires any project state, or has side effects. 'Clean up' suggests modification, but no specifics are given.

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 directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complexities.

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's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it states the action, scope ('in the project'), and even names the underlying commandlet. However, it could add a note about safety or reversibility, especially since it is a cleanup operation. Still, the minimal context is adequate for a simple 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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty and fully covered. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately contains no parameter-related information.

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: 'Clean up asset redirectors in the project'. It uses a specific verb ('clean up') and a clear resource ('asset redirectors'), and additionally mentions the underlying commandlet ('FixUpRedirects'). This distinguishes it from other asset-related tools like delete_asset or rename_asset.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit contextual guidance.

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