analyze_page_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the execution mechanism (headless browser), supported URL schemes, and output shape, but it omits side effects, failure behavior, and any caution about hitting live URLs.

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 sentences with no filler: the first defines what the tool extracts and how, the second gives scope and purpose. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 schema fully documents all parameters, the description names the output fields, and the use case is explicit, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Missing boundary conditions, such as when to prefer another sibling or known limitations, prevent a perfect score.

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 the schema already documents url, maxBands, and waitStrategy, including the file:// option. The description repeats some of that context and adds the comparison use case, but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly names the action and resource: 'Extract a page's section band map' and lists the specific fields returned (tag, label, background color, offset, height). It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like capture_live_site or get_site_elements, so it misses the top score.

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?

It gives a concrete use case — comparing a reference site's structure against a local build — and notes it works on both live URLs and file:// paths. It does not state when to avoid this tool or name an alternative, but the context is clear enough for basic routing.

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