Detect mid-word breaks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds useful context that results are limited to concrete issues measured from grapheme geometry, implying empirical detection rather than heuristics, but it does not discuss output shape, browser interaction details, or potential coverage caveats.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: 'Return only', 'Korean/English wrap issues', 'grapheme geometry', and 'in the browser' all add meaningful scoping.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits what the returned issues look like, how viewports affect detection, what ignoreSelectors excludes, and when a caller should pick this tool over the sibling tools.

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%, with only target documented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining locale behavior, viewports semantics, ignoreSelectors, or screenshotDir. It only vaguely connects 'Korean/English' to the locale parameter.

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 ('Return') and resource ('concrete Korean/English wrap issues measured from grapheme geometry in the browser'). It clearly differentiates detection of empirically measured wrap issues from sibling tools like suggest_wrap_fix or apply_wrap_fix.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as suggest_wrap_fix, inspect_wrap_css, or verify_wrap_regression. The word 'only' hints at a detection/verification role, but this is left to inference rather than stated.

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