scout_block_resources

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

The description explains the core behavior (blocking resource types to speed up loading) with examples, but fails to disclose important behavioral details such as persistence (e.g., per-navigation or session), reversibility, or side effects on page content. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is incomplete.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and provides illustrative examples. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks details on scope and persistence, but given its simplicity, the description is largely adequate for correct invocation.

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?

The sole parameter 'types' has a schema description 'Resource types to block', and the tool description adds specific examples (image, media, stylesheet, font, script), which adds value. However, it does not specify allowed values or behavior if an invalid type is provided. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the examples justify a 4.

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?

Description clearly states the tool blocks specific resource types to speed up loading, with concrete examples (image, media, stylesheet, font, script). This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like scout_click or scout_navigate, none of which involve resource blocking.

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 implies usage when you want to improve load speed by blocking non-essential resources, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. There is no guidance on potential trade-offs or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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