Review generated style

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds that the tool checks invariant matches, drift, and violations, which is useful context, but it does not disclose return formatting, limitations, or operational behavior beyond what the output schema and annotations already imply. No contradiction with 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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the core action, target, reference, and review criteria with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

Despite the tool's high complexity (5 parameters, a massive required styleResult object, output schema), the description offers no workflow guidance—such as first obtaining a StyleTrace via analyze_website_style—and no hints about viewport usage or input exclusivity. The output schema may cover return values, but operational context is under-specified for an agent to use this tool reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only broadly maps generated HTML/image URL and styleResult, but does not explain the viewportWidth/viewportHeight parameters, the enormous required styleResult structure, or the relationship between generatedHtml and generatedImageUrl (e.g., whether one is required). This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and a deeply nested 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('review') and clearly identifies the target resources (generated HTML or image URL), the reference ('StyleTrace result'), and the criteria (invariant matches, drift, likely style violations). This distinguishes it from the sibling analyze_website_style, which would likely produce the StyleTrace rather than consume it.

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 implies when to use the tool: after a StyleTrace result exists and when a generated artifact needs validation. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'against a StyleTrace result' framing provides clear contextual separation from the analysis sibling.

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