Analyze Content Quality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but delivers almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not say whether analysis is read-only or persists results, what 'quality' dimensions are measured, whether it is expensive/AI-rate-limited, or what triggers it. Only the read/write profile is implied, not stated.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for an unannotated AI-analysis tool the description is thin: nothing on what 'quality' means, cost, or side effects. Given the presence of a near-duplicate sibling, the definition should do more to make the tool safely selectable.

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 mutual exclusivity of node_ids and content_type and the 50-node cap are already documented in the schema. The description's 'specific nodes or an entire type' merely restates that, adding no new syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Analyze content quality with AI') and the scope ('specific nodes or an entire type'), so an agent can understand the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling 'ai_analyze_content_quality', leaving the two indistinguishable by name.

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 only paraphrases the schema's two targeting modes ('specific nodes or an entire type') with no guidance on when to prefer this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the sibling ai_analyze_content_quality. No prerequisites, cost, or rate-limit context is given.

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