vibefix_diagnose

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it returns scores and issue lists, and includes a ready-made bounty pre-fill. It also states it's free and no API key required. However, it does not mention error handling or behavior for invalid URLs.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second details the outputs. Information is front-loaded and efficiently organized.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and prerequisites (public URL, no API key). The agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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?

The schema covers the 'url' parameter with 100% description. The tool description adds value by clarifying it accepts any public URL, providing an example format, and explaining what the output includes (scores, issues, bounty pre-fill).

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 runs a diagnostic scan on a public URL, listing specific categories (performance, accessibility, SEO, best practices) and outcomes (scores and issues with bounty pre-fill). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle bounties and submissions.

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 mentions it's free, no API key required, and for any public URL. It implies when to use (for diagnosing a URL) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. The context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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