safari_check_pwa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs an audit and returns a checklist, without side effects or modifications. It adds useful behavioral context beyond 'audit' by listing checked items and output format.

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, front-loaded with key information (what it does, what it checks, output format). Every sentence is essential and there is no waste.

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 audit tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it lists specific checks and states the output is a pass/total checklist. No additional context is needed.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining the tool's purpose and output, which is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 audits for iOS 'Add to Home Screen' / PWA readiness, listing specific checks (apple-mobile-web-app-capable, icons, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like safari_webkit_compat or safari_doctor, which cover different audits.

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 the tool is for PWA readiness checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other audit tools or when not to use it. No comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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