inspect_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the two modes (static fetch vs headless browser) and clarifies that no vision model is invoked. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements, which are expected but not critical.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides key details. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value 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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the primary distinction between modes and the tool's scope. However, it does not describe the output or what data is returned, which would help an agent understand what to expect.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context on modes but does not explain other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, the description adds limited additional semantics.

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 it inspects webpage structure, metadata, and content, and explicitly distinguishes from visual analysis tools. It also notes it does not invoke the vision model, differentiating it from siblings like analyze_image and analyze_page_visual.

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 context on when to use (understanding a page without visual analysis) and distinguishes two modes (basic vs full) with implications for speed and data depth. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools beyond the implicit exclusion of visual analysis.

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