qa_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the return value, failure behavior, and the side-by-side preview cropped around changed regions. It also clarifies the `url` override behavior, which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. The failure-preview behavior is placed in the second sentence without unnecessary filler.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It provides a good high-level purpose and some output behavior, but the missing parameter semantics leave significant gaps for an agent deciding how to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains `url`, leaving `page`, `align`, `profile`, `base_url`, `threshold`, and `max_changed_ratio` unexplained. The required `page` parameter is especially critical but receives no clarification.

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 the core purpose: 'QA a single page against its reference' with a clear verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from batch QA tools by emphasizing 'single page' and 'fast iteration while fixing', though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'fast iteration while fixing' implies the intended usage context, and the note about `url` overriding route mapping gives some operational guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_qa or capture.

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