Read clone report

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds real value by enumerating the returned payload (manifest, per-width scores, diff image paths, worst regions) — important because there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about failure behavior when outDir is missing or contains no report, so it only partly compensates.

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?

One dense sentence with no filler, and the most useful content (the return payload) is front-loaded. It is a grammatical fragment with no verb, which slightly weakens its standalone readability.

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 read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers what comes back, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It omits error/empty-report behavior and any hint that 'latest scores' may reflect a prior verify_clone run, leaving some agent-relevant context unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Output directory of a previous clone'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not reference outDir or clarify path format/relative-vs-absolute semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 names the resource (a clone's report) and enumerates its contents — pages, targets, per-width scores, diff image paths, worst regions — which is specific enough to separate it from clone_website and verify_clone, which perform actions rather than read a stored artifact. It stops short of an explicit verb ('returns/reads'), framing the purpose as a content list rather than an action.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus clone_website or verify_clone, and no prerequisite that a prior clone must exist (that constraint lives only in the outDir schema description). An agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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