ihyee-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the core behavior ('Force full browser rendering', 'extract its content') and context ('JavaScript-heavy web page'), but lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics (e.g., slower than fetch), or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this provides basic transparency but misses key operational details.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's action, and the second provides critical context for when to use it. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs complex rendering and extraction. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks information on what 'extract its content' returns (e.g., HTML, text, screenshots), error scenarios, or performance implications. For a 4-parameter tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'wait_for' options or 'wait_selector' usage). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Force full browser rendering', 'extract its content') and resource ('JavaScript-heavy web page using Playwright'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying use cases like 'single-page apps, pages behind JS frameworks, or when a regular fetch returns incomplete content', which differentiates it from ihyee_fetch (likely a regular fetch) and ihyee_search (likely a search operation).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for single-page apps, pages behind JS frameworks, or when a regular fetch returns incomplete content'), providing clear context and alternatives (implied regular fetch). It effectively guides the agent to choose this tool over ihyee_fetch for JavaScript-heavy content extraction scenarios.

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