brand_extract_site

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes actions: discovering representative pages, rendering in headless Chrome (desktop and mobile), capturing screenshots, sampling computed styles. Does not explicitly mention non-destructive nature, rate limits, or resource intensity, but the read-only nature is implied and sufficiently 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?

Two efficient sentences: first explains what the tool does with all key verbs; second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with action. Perfectly 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 complexity (discovery, rendering, screenshots, computed styles), the description covers the main behaviors. No output schema, but merge parameter hints at output files (extraction-evidence.json). Sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and capabilities.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds meaningful context: explains why pages are discovered (representative samples) and what merge does (merge into core-identity.yaml). Enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema's brief 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?

Clear verb+resource: deeply extract brand evidence from a website. Distinguishes from siblings like brand_extract_figma and brand_extract_pdf by emphasizing deep extraction with headless Chrome, screenshots, and computed styles. Explicit usage guidance sets it apart from lighter homepage scans.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a homepage scan is not enough or when you want richer evidence before compiling tokens.' Implies alternatives (homepage scan, likely brand_extract_web). Does not name specific sibling tools for exclusion, but gives clear context.

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