audit_mobile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the url is fetched server-side and returns viewport flags, issues list, and mobile score. It does not mention whether it is read-only or any side effects, but the audit nature implies non-destructiveness.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by inputs and outputs. No wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, and output types. It could add more detail on outputs (e.g., format of issues list) or constraints (e.g., url accessibility), but overall it's fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that url is for a live URL fetched server-side and html is for raw HTML. This adds meaning beyond schema types. However, it could clarify that exactly one must be provided (implied by 'OR' but not explicit).

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 uses the specific verb 'audit' and clearly identifies the resource: 'viewport meta and horizontal-scroll risk on mobile'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_speed or check_links.

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 explicitly states inputs: 'Pass a live url (fetched server-side) OR a raw html string', giving clear guidance on how to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context of siblings implies it's for mobile-specific issues.

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