Pagehaus

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the post-condition (site is served there once records are in place), the automatic HTTPS provisioning, and the plan entitlement — real behavioral context. It stops short of stating what happens on a duplicate/conflicting domain or whether the call is reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the outcome and the plan caveat. Every sentence carries information: what it does, what you must do next, what happens after, and who is eligible. Slightly more than strictly needed but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return (DNS records) and the eventual outcome, plus entitlement gating. What is missing is failure/edge behavior — e.g., an already-claimed domain or a pending verification state — which an agent would want before calling.

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% for both required parameters, so the schema already documents 'site' and 'domain' formats. The description contributes only the constraint that the domain must be owner-controlled and repeats an example format already present in the schema. 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 and resource ('Adds a domain ... to a site') and immediately clarifies scope: an owner-controlled custom domain, distinct from list_domains or check_domain. The return value (DNS records to configure) is named, so the agent knows exactly what this call yields.

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?

There is an implicit eligibility rule ('Custom domains come with the Personal and Pro plans') which is genuinely useful gating context. However, it never says when to reach for this versus the closely related check_domain sibling, nor what prerequisite state the site must be in. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description justifies that by explaining it actively re-queries DNS 'again now' rather than just reading cached state. It also adds timing expectations (automatic rechecks, DNS propagation lag), which goes beyond the structured hints, though it does not say what a failed or pending result looks like.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded before the timing caveat, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly conversational but earns its place by setting expectations about automatic rechecks.

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?

For a status-check tool with no output schema and no return-value annotation, the description stops at 'returns its status' and never enumerates possible states (pending, verified, failed) or how the agent should interpret them. Timing context is covered, but the result semantics are left implicit.

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 both 'site' and 'domain' are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail for them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource: it looks up a custom domain's public DNS now and returns its status. That is clearly distinguishable from add_custom_domain (write) and list_domains (enumerate all), though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 note that Pagehaus re-checks newly added domains automatically every couple of minutes implicitly tells the agent a manual call is only needed for an immediate re-check, which is useful but not framed as guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g. list_domains) for checking existing state.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the connection-scope requirement, the provisioning side effect (starter page), and the resulting public URL. It does not state what happens on a duplicate/non-idempotent repeat call, which is the one notable gap.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of naming rules and the availability constraint. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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?

For a single-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: the effect, the naming contract, the resulting URL, and the gating precondition. Nothing material is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description earns more by adding naming constraints the schema omits: lowercase letters, numbers and hyphens, 3 to 40 characters, plus the derived URL form. Those constraints directly determine whether a caller-supplied name is valid.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Creates a new site") and adds the concrete side effect an agent needs: a starter page is provisioned and the site is live at https://<name>.pagehaus.site/. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like list_sites or add_custom_domain.

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?

It states an explicit applicability precondition — "Only available when the connection covers all sites" — which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of the top score.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is known; the description adds that the deletion is permanent and that folders require emptiness, plus an API reference link. This is useful extra context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope in the first clause, then adds the path clarification and permanence warning. Slightly padded by the API URL, but no wasted sentences.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, the empty-folder precondition, and irreversibility. It omits error behavior (e.g. non-existent path), a minor gap.

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 100%, so both parameters (site, path) are already documented in the schema. The description restates path as a file-or-folder inside the site and gives the same example, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 (deletes) and resource (one file, or an empty folder) scoped to a Pagehaus site, which clearly separates it from the read/write/list file siblings. An agent immediately knows what this tool does.

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?

Provides an implicit precondition — a folder can only be deleted once it's empty — but never names an alternative (e.g. list_files to confirm contents) or states when-not to use it. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail that results are measured in bytes against the plan, but says nothing about scope (per-site vs account) or freshness, which is a modest contribution beyond the annotations.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the verb and enumerates the returned metrics with units. No filler, though it is quite terse given the tool takes a site argument.

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?

For a simple read-only metric tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description tells the agent what data comes back, which is the key missing piece. Only minor gaps (per-site scope, currency of data) remain.

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 100% and there is a single 'site' parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the load — the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 ('Shows') and resource set (storage, files and folders, and traffic) scoped against the account's plan, with units (bytes). Clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_files or list_sites that touch overlapping resources.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and content — an agent can infer this is for checking consumption against a plan — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Adequate but with an obvious gap.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing result ordering and that each entry carries the originating app or token. It does not discuss result volume or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but that is minor for a simple read.

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?

One tight sentence that leads with the operation, then scope, then examples, then ordering and attribution. No filler or repetition of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of characterizing the return: change types, order, and per-entry actor. Combined with annotations that cover safety and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has what it needs, though 'connected apps' could be spelled out slightly more.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('How many changes, 1 to 100', default 30), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the limit, which is the baseline 3 case rather than a gap.

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 and resource ('Lists recent changes') and pins down the scope precisely: changes made through the Pagehaus API and connected apps, with concrete examples of the change types. The ordering ('newest first') and actor attribution ('which app or token made each one') make it obvious this is a cross-resource activity feed, not a per-resource listing like list_files or list_sites.

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 examples (files written or deleted, sites created, domains added) imply the audit/history use case and implicitly distinguish it from the enumeration siblings, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage must be inferred rather than read.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the return content: the three possible statuses and the conditional inclusion of required DNS records until a domain goes live. That conditional behavior is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though permissions or pagination behavior is not mentioned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return details folded in efficiently. The parenthetical status list makes it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value burden — and it does, explaining statuses and the conditional DNS-record payload. For a one-parameter read tool this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'site' as the site name. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Lists) and resource (a site's custom domains) and enumerates the status values it returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_custom_domain and check_domain without opening any schema.

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 purpose implies when to use it (inspecting existing domains and their DNS setup), but it never states when-not to use it or points to an alternative such as check_domain for a single domain. Usage is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this goes through the Pagehaus files API (with a docs link), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a returned entry looks like for a mutation-free listing tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the scope statement front-loaded and the path clarification second. The inline API help URL is marginally useful but is the only bit of text that is not strictly needed to invoke the tool.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only listing with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing: resource, scope, and the one non-obvious parameter are all stated, and no output schema exists that would need describing.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the schema carries the load. The description restates the path semantics (folder inside the site, e.g. "/" or "/blog") but adds no formatting, normalization, or error behavior beyond the schema.

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 (lists) and resource (files and folders in one folder of a Pagehaus site), with the scoping constraint that it covers a single folder. The resource noun naturally separates it from list_sites/list_domains/list_activity, but it never explicitly differentiates listing from read_file/write_file/delete_file, which is the sibling pair an agent could confuse.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of "one folder" and the path parameter suggest browsing a directory before reading or writing a specific file. There is no explicit when-to-use, no stated exclusion, and no pointer to read_file as the next step, so the agent must infer the routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: results are ordered newest first, field values are untrusted text authored by members of the public (a prompt-injection warning), and visitor IP addresses are deliberately excluded. It does not describe default/max result size or pagination behavior.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: purpose plus ordering first, then the untrusted-content warning, then the IP-exclusion note. No repetition of what the schema or annotations already say.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent enough about the return shape (newest-first messages, untrusted text fields, no IPs) to consume results safely, and the schema supplies pagination. A brief note on default page size or how to detect the last page would close the remaining gap.

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 schema already documents form filtering, the 1-50 limit, the site name, and the 'before' cursor. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the 'newest first' ordering that contextualizes the cursor. Baseline 3 when the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 (Lists) and resource (messages sent through a Pagehaus site's contact forms) plus ordering (newest first). This is trivially distinguishable from siblings like list_files, list_activity, and list_sites, which target entirely different resources.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource description (read contact-form submissions), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the eleven siblings. The API help URL gives provenance but not routing criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the results are scoped to what this connection is authorized to use, and each entry includes its web address. It does not mention pagination or result size, which keeps it below a 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier and the returned field are packed into one clause without redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only lister with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the two things an agent needs: authorization scope and the fact that web addresses are returned. With no output schema, a fuller picture of the returned record (IDs, other fields) would make it complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify.

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 and resource ("Lists the Pagehaus sites") and narrows the scope to those the connection can use, which separates it from sibling listers like list_domains and list_files. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies the usage context (enumerate the sites available to this connection) but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as list_domains or create_site, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the verb but not spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the output is static reference content; it discloses nothing extra about freshness, size, or structure of the returned reference.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the resource and the two valid topic values front-loaded. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only lookup with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only mild gap is that an agent is not told the shape or extent of the returned reference.

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% and the single parameter's allowed values are already documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the same two topic strings, adding no syntax, defaulting, or behavioral nuance beyond the schema.

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 ("Returns") and resource ("Pagehaus's reference") and enumerates the exact topics covered (includes, forms). It is unambiguously a documentation-lookup tool, clearly distinct from the file/site/domain operation siblings.

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?

By naming the two topics it implicitly tells the agent when to reach for each, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement of when NOT to use it, and no mention of alternatives such as the guide being needed before write_file or create_site operations.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return encoding rule (text for HTML/CSS/JS, base64 for other file types), which is not captured anywhere in the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by the API reference and the return-format rule. No filler sentences and every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps up by explaining the text-versus-base64 return shape, which is the key thing an agent needs to interpret results. It falls short of complete only in not covering failure modes (missing site/path) or the API reference details, but annotations carry the safety profile.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description's example path '/index.html' largely repeats the schema's own example. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no new constraint, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Reads one file from a Pagehaus site') and scopes it to a single file, which cleanly separates it from list_files and write_file. The mention of the underlying files API adds a concrete anchor for what operation is being performed.

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?

Usage is only implied: read one known file, as opposed to list_files for discovery or write_file for mutation. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or named alternative, and no guidance on what happens if the path does not exist.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds real context beyond the annotations: the change is publicly visible immediately, overwriting replaces content, folders are created on demand, and binary payloads require base64 encoding.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then path behavior, then mutation semantics, then the encoding caveat. Nothing is redundant and the API help link is the only marginal extra.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: scope, overwrite behavior, immediate visibility, folder creation, and binary handling. Auth requirements, size limits, and error behavior are unstated, which is the only notable gap.

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, but the description adds value: it explains that path is relative to the site top with an example, that intermediate folders are created, and that encoding='base64' is required for binary files such as images.

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 and resource ('Creates or replaces one file on a Pagehaus site') plus the API being used. The 'one file' scope and path semantics clearly separate it from siblings like delete_file, read_file, and list_files.

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 makes the use case clear (write a file into a site, folders auto-created, replaces existing content) and the sibling names make alternatives self-evident. It stops short of explicitly naming when to use read_file/delete_file instead, so it lacks true exclusions.

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