Tap

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). Description adds valuable behavioral context: specific detection targets (framework, SSR state) and output format (extraction strategies). Also documents the 're-forge' recovery workflow not indicated in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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, zero waste. First sentence front-loads core functionality; second sentence adds critical workflow guidance for broken taps. Every word 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?

For a single-parameter analysis tool, description adequately covers functional outputs (extraction strategies) and operational modes (initial analysis vs re-forging). Missing explicit parameter documentation is the primary gap, but the behavioral description is sufficient for agent selection given the annotation coverage.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'url' parameter. Description mentions 'Analyze a page' which loosely implies a URL input, but fails to explicitly document the parameter, expected format (absolute vs relative), or that it is optional (schema shows required: 0). With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate more explicitly.

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 specific verbs (analyze, detects, generates) with distinct resource (page) and scope (framework, SSR state, APIs, extraction strategies). Uniquely identifies as the 'tap forging' inspection tool, distinguishing it from generic inspect_page/inspect_dom siblings and creation-focused forge_draft.

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?

Provides explicit secondary use case: 'use this to re-forge a broken tap — inspect the page again to find what changed.' This signals a specific workflow trigger. Lacks explicit comparison to when to use inspect_page vs this tool, but the 'tap forging' framing provides implicit context.

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