pageaudit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a non-mutating, exploratory self-describing index covering the entire API, which is meaningful context. However, it says nothing about the form of the result (list, schemas, documentation, links) or whether the index reflects live tool availability, so behavioral transparency is partial.

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 sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded ('Discovers the whole PageAudit API') followed by a useful clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place; there is zero redundancy or filler, and the size matches the tool's trivial parameter surface.

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 tool the description is mostly adequate, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to explain what the agent will receive. It does not describe the response shape or how the index is organized, and it does not disambiguate from the list_tools sibling. These gaps are mitigated by the tool's low invocation risk.

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 has zero properties and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and the description rightly does not invent any. The tool is trivially invocable with an empty object.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discovers'), a specific resource ('the whole PageAudit API'), and the parenthetical clarifies that the tool is a self-describing index rather than a domain action. It clearly reads as the meta/discovery tool among 13 action-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not, so it stops short of the top score.

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 guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. This is a real gap because sibling 'list_tools' plausibly serves a similar discovery purpose, and the description does not explain which agent should prefer which. The intended use ('discover the API first') is only barely implied, with no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool returns the full report and includes 'fixes' for each finding, and that it does not use a tab. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether it creates a record, whether it requires authentication, or what happens to the audit report, which is relevant since audits can be stored operations.

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 action and resource, and the important output detail ('fixes', 'without a tab') appears immediately. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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-required-parameter tool with simple inputs and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the return value shape ('full report with fixes') and a notable behavioral contrast ('without a tab'). However, it omits any mention of side effects or auth requirements, which are meaningful for an audit operation without annotations.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that 'fixes' are included in the report and that no tab is created, which helps interpret the output, but it doesn't add parameter-level meaning beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Audits') with a clear resource ('a URL') and states a distinctive output detail: it returns the full report with ready fixes and no tab. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audit and run_tab, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 primary use case: auditing a URL and receiving fixes directly. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_audit, run_tab, or create_tab, but the mention of 'without a tab' gives a useful contextual contrast. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives named.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does provide some behavioral detail: signing up with a confirmed e-mail grants 90 days without a paywall, and the `trial` field shows state when a session is present. However, it does not clearly state whether the tool is read-only, what the full response contains, or how session absence affects output.

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 short and front-loads key billing topics, but it is dense and awkwardly structured. The phrase 'x402 parameters' is unclear, and the parenthetical and semicolon construction make the trial-state behavior harder to parse than necessary.

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 and no annotations, the description should more fully explain what an agent can expect from calling this tool. It covers several billing aspects and mentions the `trial` field, but it does not explicitly state the tool's return value, whether it is informational only, or how the billing state is presented.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is already exhaustive. The description adds useful context about billing terms and trial state, which is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to document.

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 communicates that the tool is related to billing topics—free plan, prices, x402 parameters, and trial offer—but it never states an explicit action such as 'returns', 'gets', or 'shows billing info'. It is more than a tautology, but the lack of a verb makes the purpose somewhat vague.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no explicit context like 'use this when the user asks about pricing or trial eligibility'. The billing topics imply possible use cases, but the agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses several important behaviors: 402 errors with a cost, captcha handling for agents vs. humans, 429 responses, Retry-After, exponential backoff (60s doubling, 1h cap), and a 24h reset. This goes well beyond a typical tool description, even though the '$0.10 x402' phrasing is slightly cryptic.

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 appropriately short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The remaining sentences are dense but compact; the only structural weakness is the cryptic shorthand such as '$0.10 x402' and '60s → 2×, 1h cap.'

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?

The failure modes are well covered, but there is no output schema and the description never states what a successful send returns or whether any confirmation is produced. It also leaves the agent-vs-human success path implicit, so an agent is not fully told how to achieve a successful call.

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 documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema's simple descriptions.

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 first sentence, 'Sends a support message,' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but none of the listed siblings appear to be support-message tools, so no differentiation is required.

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 gives operational context ('Agent: no captcha → 402', 'Human: Turnstile') that implies an agent will be blocked and a human may need to solve a captcha, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage rule 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a creation side effect, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, token lifetime, rate limits, or any impact on the tab workspace. This is minimal transparency for a mutation 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, names the resource, and provides a concrete token prefix. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter, single-effect tool, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the created guest token), though the 'creates a guest token pa_…' phrasing strongly implies the output.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds a useful detail about the token format without needing param-level explanation.

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 specific action ('creates a guest token') and the target resource ('the tab workspace'), and even specifies the token format prefix 'pa_…'. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_tab or run_tab.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, expected context, or cases where it should not be used. The single statement explains what it does but not the usage conditions.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation (creating a tab) but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or the response shape. The guest_token parameter is not even mentioned, so the agent cannot anticipate the authentication requirement.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the action, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity. The structure is clear and easily parsed.

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, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is under-documented. The agent lacks information about expected outcomes, error conditions, or how the guest_token affects behavior. For a tool that creates a resource, this is insufficient.

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 description only mentions 'URL' and adds nothing beyond the schema for url and alias. The guest_token has no schema description and is not explained here, so the description fails to compensate for the 67% schema coverage gap. It adds minimal semantic value.

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 a specific action ('Opens a tab for a URL') and the resource (tab) and target (URL). It is clear and distinguishes from siblings like list_tabs or run_tab, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The core purpose is unambiguous, but it could mention the guest_token requirement for completeness.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., guest_token) or when to prefer run_tab or list_tabs. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and schema.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a non-mutating retrieval ('re-reads') but offers no detail on side effects, return structure, or error 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?

The description is extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey the core action and mention of fixes, with no redundant 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?

The description lacks essential context: the purpose of 'guest_token', the complete output shape, and any relationship to other audit tools. Given no annotations or output schema, this is insufficient.

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?

Only 'id' has a description (audit ID from Audit.id); 'guest_token' is completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage 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?

The description clearly indicates a read operation to retrieve an existing audit, and the 'get_audit' name reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state the output format or the role of fixes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any preconditions. The description does not mention any context for invocation.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states what resource is returned. It does not disclose side effects, error behavior, authentication assumptions, or the structure of the metadata. The read-only nature is only inferable from the tool's name.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core deliverable and stays proportionate to the tool's simplicity.

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 getter this is adequate: the resource and purpose are clear, and the schema covers the required input. However, with no output schema or usage guidance, the vague 'metadata' term and absence of response details leave some gaps for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 the single slug parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter meaning beyond implying the slug refers to a shared report, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies the target resource as the SVG badge of a shared report and the content as metadata and markdown. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate from sibling getters like get_tool or get_audit, but the resource is specific enough.

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 no guidance on when to prefer get_badge over alternatives or when it is not appropriate. The mention of a 'shared report' implies a public-slug context, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not clearly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. The phrase 'No model — only facts from the page' hints at deterministic behavior but does not explicitly disclose the tool's behavioral guarantees.

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 short and mostly to the point, using a compact structure that conveys the output contents. The 'No model — only facts from the page' line is somewhat cryptic but does not add excessive verbosity.

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?

The description explains what the returned patch contains and hints at its origin, but it lacks detail on the required guest_token parameter and does not clarify the intended use case relative to other audit-related tools. Overall, it is adequate but not 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?

Only one of two parameters (id) is described in the schema, and the description adds no additional meaning for guest_token. With 50% parameter coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented parameter but does not.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a consolidated patch for an audit, with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('patch of an audit'). The mention of 'head block', 'files to create', and 'templates' gives useful context, though the phrase 'No model — only facts from the page' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_audit or other sibling tools. The description implies its purpose but does not state conditions or provide comparison to related tools.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the returned 'copy and checks' means, whether there are side effects, or what the response format is. The phrase 'copy and checks' is too unclear to infer even a basic 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?

The description is extremely short, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. The opening phrase 'Copy and checks' is confusing and not front-loaded with a clear action. It is under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but the description is still inadequate. It does not explain the purpose clearly, lacks behavioral context, and provides no details about the output or how it differs from sibling tools. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 documents slug as 'tool slug' with 100% coverage. The description adds a concrete example, 'title-tag-checker', which helps clarify the expected format. However, it does not add much more semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 mentions a resource (micro-tool) and an identifier (slug), but the phrase 'Copy and checks' is grammatically ambiguous and does not clearly convey the action of retrieving or getting a tool. It is not a clear verb+resource statement and may mislead the agent about whether this tool copies or checks something.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The phrase 'by slug' implies this tool is for looking up a single micro-tool, and the example hints at an identifier, but there is no explicit context about when to prefer it over siblings like list_tools. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and discloses the core behavior: it reports liveness and deployed build. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, what the response looks like, or any operational caveats, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 extremely short and front-loads the two key concepts: liveness and deployed build. It is not padded, though it is a fragment rather than a full structured explanation.

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?

As a no-parameter, low-complexity health tool, the description conveys the essential purpose. It is incomplete on return value details, which would matter since no output schema is provided, but it is minimally adequate for selecting the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 the tool's function as exposing liveness and the deployed build, which is clear for a zero-parameter health endpoint. It lacks an explicit verb, so it falls short of a full verb+resource statement, but it is easily distinguished from the listed sibling tools.

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 no explicit guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives, but the term 'Liveness' implies using it to check service health and build status. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage is mostly inferred.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a listing/read-only operation scoped to the owner, which is a minimal behavioral statement. However, it does not disclose error behavior, output shape, token requirements, or whether any side effects occur.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action and scope are front-loaded. It could include more operational detail, but as prose it is appropriately 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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves too much unsaid. An agent still needs to guess what a 'tab' is, how to obtain a guest_token, what the returned data looks like, and how this relates to sibling tools like run_tab and create_tab.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the sole required parameter guest_token is not mentioned in the description. The agent receives no explanation of what guest_token is, where it comes from, or its format, leaving the parameter semantically opaque.

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 verb ('Lists') and the resource ('tabs'), and scopes it to 'the owner's tabs (guest or session)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tools and create_tab, though the meaning of 'guest or session' is slightly ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings such as run_tab, create_tab, or list_tools. The only signal is the word 'lists', so the appropriate usage context must be inferred entirely by the agent.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Lists' indicates a read-only enumeration and the examples clarify what kinds of items are included. However, it does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, authentication needs, or whether the listing includes all available tools or a filtered subset.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The examples add useful specificity without bloating the text.

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, no-output-schema list tool, the description is sufficient to understand its basic function. The term 'micro-tools' is slightly ambiguous, but the parenthetical examples clarify the scope. No critical calling context appears 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate when parameter space is empty.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('micro-tools'), with concrete examples (title, meta, canonical, OG, JSON-LD). It is distinct from sibling list_tabs by naming a different resource type, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tool or api_index. The listing behavior implies discovery/enumeration, but there are no clear conditions, exclusions, or pointers to sibling tools.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Re-audits' implies an action that likely modifies or triggers a process, but it does not state whether it is read-only, asynchronous, or has side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 extremely concise with no fluff, but it lacks structure and is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. It is a single sentence that does not front-load essential context beyond the basic action.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 're-audit' entails, what the result or return value is, or any prerequisites or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it 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 only 50% (only 'id' has a description), and the description adds no information about the parameters, particularly 'guest_token' which is undocumented. The description fails to compensate 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 the action ('re-audits') and the resource ('the tab's URL'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'audit_url' by implying a repeat audit on an existing tab, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audit_url' or 'create_tab'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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