Checks HTML pages in /root/family-home/ for broken links, broken fetches, missing mobile nav, placeholder text, missing images, stale links, missing OG tags, missing favicon, JS syntax issues, and empty sections. Catches what drift_audit does not - actual page functionality and UX issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Specific page to check (e.g. 'gateway.html'), or 'all' for everything |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the exact checks performed (broken links, missing OG tags, etc.), which gives the agent concrete behavioral context 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?
The description consists of two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence lists the checks, and the second provides comparative value with drift_audit. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
While the description covers the tool's purpose and differentiation, it lacks any mention of what the tool returns (e.g., a report, success/failure). Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the output format, which it does not.
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 input schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'page', providing examples and default behavior. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the tool checks HTML pages for a specific list of issues (broken links, missing nav, etc.) and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool drift_audit by indicating it catches what drift_audit does not.
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 clear guidance on when to use this tool over drift_audit ('Catches what drift_audit does not'), implying it is for functional/UX checks. It does not, however, address other sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among multiple audit/check tools (e.g., accountability_check, drift_audit, security_audit). However, descriptions and naming help differentiate their specific scopes, so ambiguity is low.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_archive_safety, propagate_family_member), making them predictable and easy to understand.
33 tools is on the high side, but the server covers a broad domain (system health, audits, propagation, session management, etc.). The count is justified by the comprehensive scope, though it may feel heavy for agents.
The tool set covers the entire lifecycle of system management: health monitoring, audits, propagation, sessions, compliance, and more. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a nervous system framework.
