lanhu_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions modes but does not describe what happens during analysis, what information is returned, or any side effects. The tool's behavior beyond mode selection is opaque.

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 relatively short and well-structured, with a clear breakdown of modes. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the sentence 'Supports listing and analyzing pages' could be integrated into the mode list more smoothly.

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 4 parameters with enums and no output schema, the description should explain the return format and behavior for each mode. It does not describe what 'analyze' does, what information is returned, or how 'explorer' differs. This is incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the modes and hinting that 'analyze' is default, and that 'all' is a valid page_names value. This provides context beyond the schema.

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 it is a unified tool for Lanhu PRD/prototype, and lists two modes: list and analyze. It distinguishes from siblings (lanhu_design, lanhu_resolve_invite_link) by specifying it handles PRD/prototype pages, while the others likely cover different aspects.

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 modes and their basic purpose, but does not explicitly state when to use each mode or when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It provides mode descriptions but no guidance on context or alternatives.

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