audit_lighthouse_cls_vitals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions using an external API and local heuristics, but does not disclose side effects, read-only status, rate limits, or behavior when url or html are missing. It also fails to explain what happens if both or neither are provided, leaving critical behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to the definition without redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is complex with four optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description does not clarify whether url or html is required, how results are returned, or what the impact of missing inputs is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or constraints beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline 3 for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool audits CLS and Core Web Vitals via Google Lighthouse/PageSpeed API and local heuristics. It names specific metrics and methods, making the purpose distinct from general audit tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from comprehensive_seo_audit or audit_technical_seo, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would make it the preferred choice. The agent is left to infer usage based solely on the description.

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