cta_clarity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only lists return fields and describes a read-like analysis, but omits details on whether the url fetch is destructive, authentication needs, or rate limits. This leaves the agent with insufficient behavioral context.

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 concise—three sentences—with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what it does, how to call it, and what it returns. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has no output schema and low parameter complexity, the description covers key returns and inputs. However, it omits details like required inputs (one of url/html), behavior when both are provided, and error handling. The contextual completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it explains that url is fetched server-side and html is raw, and that either can be passed. This goes beyond the schema's anyOf and null defaults, making parameter usage clear.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes CTA presence, count, and above-the-fold placement, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_mobile or check_links by focusing on CTA elements.

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 explains the two input options (url or html) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., audit_mobile for mobile-specific CTA). Without exclusions or alternative references, the usage context is only partially clear.

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