Get JavaScript Analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (JS boot-up time, main-thread breakdown, unused JS, most expensive scripts), which partly compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about cost, latency, auth, or 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the concrete return breakdown. No filler or redundancy.

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 read analysis with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and enumerates the returns, compensating for the missing output schema. The one gap is the lack of relationship to analyze_url and the other dimension tools, and no indication of whether prior analysis is required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both url and strategy are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail (e.g. what mobile vs desktop changes, or URL format constraints) beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Get JavaScript execution analysis for a URL', with the returned artifacts enumerated. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_network_analysis and get_render_blocking by the JS-execution focus, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from them or from the parent analyze_url.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the URL must first be analyzed), and no mention of when to prefer this over analyze_url or the other per-dimension siblings. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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