analyze_page_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (analyzes structure, identifies sections, detects transitions, groups icons, estimates tokens, recommends agent count) and includes a workflow section, though it lacks details on error handling, performance, or rate limits. No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('HOW IT WORKS', 'RETURNS', 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW'), front-loaded with key information, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently communicates complex functionality in a digestible format.

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 the tool's complexity (structural analysis with multiple outputs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: it details the analysis process, lists all return fields with explanations, and includes a workflow for integration with sibling tools. This compensates well for the lack of structured data.

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 already documents all three parameters. The description does not add any specific meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how partial matches work or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool analyzes page structure before implementation, identifies sections by background color changes, detects transition elements, groups icons, estimates tokens, and recommends agent count. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_frame_info or get_section_screenshot by focusing on structural analysis for workflow planning.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'MUST BE CALLED FIRST for any large page/frame' and includes a 'TYPICAL WORKFLOW' section detailing when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_section_screenshot and get_agent_context, specifying conditional logic based on the output.

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