catalogready_audit_discovery_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions inputs (page HTML, robots.txt, sitemap) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output behavior. The main verb 'audit' is ambiguous regarding read/write nature.

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 a single concise sentence, efficiently listing the key inputs. It could be improved by front-loading the purpose but has 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 no output schema and moderate complexity (4 params), the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the audit output is, how results are returned, or criteria for choosing this bundle over similar siblings. Missing essential guidance for correct tool selection.

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 meaning by mapping the optional parameters (robots_txt, sitemap_xml) to the evidence mentioned. However, it does not add details on format, constraints, or usage beyond name mapping.

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 audits page HTML along with optional robots.txt and sitemap evidence. It distinguishes from siblings like `catalogready_audit_page_html` by bundling additional discovery files, but does not elaborate on what the audit entails.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when to include the optional files. The description implies usage for auditing with discovery evidence but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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