cwv_audit_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the action type and return value, but does not mention potential side effects, network/browser dependencies, failure behavior, or whether any files are modified. For an audit tool this is acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 verb, resource, and key outputs with no filler. Every phrase contributes useful information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple parameter set and absence of an output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected result. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites or network requirements, but it is not missing critical calling information.

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 three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 0-100 score, which helps clarify min_score, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema for device or target.

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 action ('Run a comprehensive Core Web Vitals audit'), a clear resource ('a live URL or local HTML file'), and the expected outputs ('0-100 score, LCP/CLS/INP metrics, and diagnostic findings'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which focus on optimization, cache config, PWA generation, OG cards, and performance diffing.

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 clearly states what the tool operates on and what it produces, giving an agent a solid sense of when to call it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use case is evident from the audit framing and sibling context.

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