analyze_css_selectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only states the core function (parse/match) and does not mention limits, truncation, error handling, read-only nature, or any side effects. The many limit-related parameters suggest important behaviors that are left undisclosed.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient language.

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 17 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this description is far too minimal. While an output schema exists and covers return values, the complex behaviors around selector matching, limits, linked stylesheet fetching, and truncation are entirely absent, leaving the agent without critical usage context.

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%, yet the description does not compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It loosely mentions 'inline, linked, or raw CSS' but does not map that to specific parameters like css, source_url, or document_handle. None of the 17 parameters (e.g., match_html, limit, fetch_linked_stylesheets) are explained in the description.

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 what the tool does: 'Parse inline, linked, or raw CSS with tinycss2 and optionally match selectors back onto HTML.' The verb 'parse' plus the resources 'CSS' and 'HTML' make the purpose specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like query_selector or parse_html_document.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The only implied use is having CSS to analyze, but no explicit comparison to other tools is given.

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