sitelens_export_checklist

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the checklist is severity-ordered, includes specific categories, and is produced with 'No AI', which adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema. But it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether 'export' writes a file, what permissions are needed, or what the response format is.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste: the action, output, source selection, categories, and the 'No AI' note are all packed efficiently. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it: it explains the source report selection and the contents of the generated checklist. It is slightly incomplete because it does not specify the return format (e.g., text, markdown, file) or clarify the 'export' behavior, but the core calling information is present.

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% for the single optional url parameter. The description adds only 'latest (or url-matched)' nuance, which the schema already covers as 'Optional URL substring to pick a report'; the schema does the heavy lifting, so the 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 states a specific verb and output ('Build a severity-ordered actionable checklist') with source options ('latest (or url-matched) report') and the checklist categories (SEO warn/fail, image suggestions, a11y, security). It clearly distinguishes itself from a raw report fetch, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like sitelens_get_latest_report.

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?

It implies the tool is used when an agent wants a checklist derived from the latest or a url-matched report rather than the raw report itself. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no when-not conditions, and does not name sitelens_get_latest_report or sitelens_list_reports as the alternatives.

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