Audit documentation page

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states only 'audit,' implying a read operation, but lacks explicit confirmation of idempotency, safety (e.g., no destructive effects), required permissions, or whether it fetches data from a store (given optional 'path' and required 'content'). This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose, which is good, but it is too brief given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions). Important details are omitted, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 high complexity (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the required input ('content' only, but 'path' may be needed), how the audit works, or what output to expect despite an output schema being present. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters ('path', 'title', 'content', 'declaredMode'). It does not explain the role of each parameter, their optionality, or how they relate to the audit. For example, 'declaredMode' is an enum but its purpose is unclear.

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 states 'Audit a Markdown page for Diataxis mode, mixed-mode signals, and refactoring actions,' which clearly identifies the verb (audit) and resource (Markdown page) and lists three specific analyses. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'audit_doc_tree,' which presumably audits a tree of pages, leaving ambiguity about scope.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like 'audit_doc_tree' or 'classify_doc_request,' nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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