safari_css_coverage

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

No annotations provided. Description states it 'analyzes' and 'shows' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it modifies the page, or any other behavioral traits (e.g., performance impact, auth needs).

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 succinct sentences with key information front-loaded: purpose and output. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read analysis tool, description covers purpose and output. However, lacks mention of any side effects or performance considerations. No output schema to compensate.

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?

No parameters; schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Baseline of 4 applies since description need not add param info, and it correctly omits any.

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?

Clear verb ('analyze'), specific resource ('CSS coverage'), and explicit outcome ('find unused CSS rules', 'shows coverage percentage'). Distinct from all siblings, none of which analyze CSS coverage.

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?

Implied usage: when you need to find unused CSS rules. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives (though no direct sibling exists).

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