Verify a clone

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent: 'build and score' signals a real build that writes output and hits the site. It also adds interpretive value by stating 'A score drop means the refactor changed rendering.' It omits practical traits such as cost/time or where results are stored.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the target guidance and the interpretation note. Slightly dense quoting of enum values ('["next"]' / '["astro"]') duplicates schema detail rather than earning its space.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers purpose, use case, target meaning, and how to read results. The remaining gap is whether the run produces an artifact consumable by read_report, which an agent would want to know given that sibling.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely clarifies the vague 'targets' field by explaining that 'next'/'astro' build and score a generated project versus the default preview scoring. It says nothing about outDir or widths beyond the schema, so it is a modest but real addition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Re-score an existing clone against the original site'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling that creates clones and the one that reads reports. The parenthetical use case ('after refactoring the generated components') further pins down intent.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger for using it ('after refactoring the generated components') and explains the targets choice for building a generated project. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point at a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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