analyze_page_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default behavior (viewport screenshot) and output format (structured findings with element refs and evidence). However, it omits details on permissions, cost, latency, or potential side effects, which are moderately important for an AI agent.

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 extremely concise with three focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and capabilities, and each sentence contributes valuable information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not explain parameter interactions, return structure details, or error handling, which are crucial for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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 low (45%), and the description adds minimal parameter clarification beyond stating the default screenshot mode. Core parameters like prompt, viewport, and wait_until are not elaborated in the description, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing a webpage visually using screenshot, DOM structure, and MiniMax vision. It lists specific use cases (design critique, UX review, visual hierarchy, etc.) and the methodology, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_image or extract_page_data.

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 explicitly lists use cases such as design critique and UX review, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or say when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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