Audit responsive word wrapping

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about multi-width rendering and the specific report categories. However, it does not disclose the effect of screenshotDir (which may imply saving screenshots), the output format, or any constraints or prerequisites, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, dense sentence with no fluff. The core action and output are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and several closely related sibling tools, this description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, return value expectations, and any guidance for choosing this tool versus its siblings, so an agent is left to infer important operational details.

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 only 20%, and the description does little to compensate. It hints at 'multiple widths' and a page target, but does not explain the meaning or interaction of locale, viewports, screenshotDir, or ignoreSelectors beyond what the bare schema already exposes.

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 a specific action ('Render a page at multiple widths') and the exact findings it reports ('Korean/English mid-word wraps and forced source newlines'), making the tool's function easy to identify. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like detect_midword_breaks or verify_wrap_regression, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a sensible use case—responsive wrapping audits across viewport widths—but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over detect_midword_breaks, inspect_wrap_css, or verify_wrap_regression. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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