compare_lighthouse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses analysis duration (~20-60 saniye) and that scores are shown side-by-side, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. The time estimate adds value but more depth is needed.

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 sentences with no redundant information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each 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?

The description covers the comparison purpose, categories, devices, and time estimate. However, without an output schema, it does not detail the report format or whether scores are numerical or descriptive, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The tool description adds context about typical use (production vs staging) but does not enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compares two URLs using Google Lighthouse and produces a comparison report. It specifies the verb (analyze and compare), resource (URLs via Lighthouse), and output (comparison report). It distinguishes from siblings like lighthouse_analyze which likely handles single URLs.

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 implies usage for comparing two versions (mevcut vs yeni) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. While the context is clear, there is no direct guidance on sibling differentiation.

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