analyze_webpage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the meaningful pipeline trait that a real page is rendered and screenshotted before a vision model answers the query. It omits failure behavior, whether the screenshot itself is returned or saved, and any auth/network requirements for fetching the URL.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the core mechanism is stated first. It is arguably over-compressed, since nothing else is offered, but nothing is redundant.

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 tool with four parameters including a nested viewport object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what comes back (the analysis text, a screenshot path, or both) and any environment requirements. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or runtime prerequisites.

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%, with defaults and max values already documented for url, viewport, and waitTime, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — it never mentions the query, viewport, or wait time — so it neither helps nor hurts 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?

States a specific two-step action (screenshot a webpage, then analyze with Moondream) and names the vision model, so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling analyze_image, leaving the webpage-vs-static-image boundary to be inferred from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over analyze_image, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the target must be reachable from the host). The default URL of localhost:3000 hints at a local-dev use case but that is never stated as a selection rule.

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