audit_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is heavy, requires 'saveToFile', notes a vulnerability ('PUT-готч') regarding cover images, and explains output format (summary in chat, full list to file). This is comprehensive and goes beyond minimal expectations.

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, somewhat dense paragraph that efficiently conveys purpose and details. It is front-loaded with the main action, but could benefit from minor restructuring for clarity.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns (summary and file). It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is low (33%), but the description adds meaning to all parameters: it explains 'minWords' as a threshold for short articles, and 'saveToFile' for output file. 'site' is not detailed but its role is implied. This compensates for the schema gaps.

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 that the tool performs a content audit on full article bodies, listing specific checks (FAQ section, length, title, image, internal links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'audit_orphans' by its specific scope and focus on full content.

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 provides guidance on when to use the tool by noting that it is heavy and requires the 'saveToFile' parameter. It implies that this is for full content audits, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives.

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