craft_content_improver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that it returns a 'score and improved version,' which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, processing details, limitations, or what CRAFT principles entail, leaving significant 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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that immediately state the action, method, and expected return value. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it identifies the core inputs and outputs but lacks details on usage context, CRAFT principles, output formatting, and parameter interdependencies. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps for nuanced use.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on how 'goal', 'audience', or 'constraints' affect the analysis, nor does it provide examples or clarify the 'content_type' values beyond what the schema already lists.

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 'Analyze and improve any content using CRAFT principles' with a specific verb (analyze/improve), resource (content), and expected output ('Returns score and improved version'). It differentiates itself from sibling generation tools by focusing on improvement and scoring rather than content creation.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'any content' implies broad applicability, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for specific content types.

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