detect_pixels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the URL is fetched server-side and describes the output (booleans, list, count). However, it does not specify behavior when both url and html are provided, error handling, or any side effects.

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: first states purpose, second explains input options, third describes output. No redundancy, every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers input options and output structure. Could be improved by specifying behavior when both params are provided or neither, but it's sufficient for correct invocation.

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 adds essential meaning: url is a 'live url (fetched server-side)' and html is a 'raw html string'. This clarifies the difference and usage mode beyond the raw schema which only lists types and defaults.

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 verb (detect) and the resource (specific tracking pixels: Meta Pixel, GA4, GTM, TikTok). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_mobile and audit_speed by focusing on pixel detection.

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?

Explicit guidance on using either a URL or raw HTML string, which covers the primary usage scenario. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions, but the context signals show sibling tools cover different domains, implying this tool is for pixel detection only.

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