run_qa

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 explains the failure criteria in detail, including the nuanced 'max_changed_ratio' condition that catches local color changes SSIM averages away, and describes the return format (JSON summary with changed regions, preview images). It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites like needing reference screenshots to exist, but the core runtime behavior is well disclosed.

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: a one-sentence purpose statement, parameter explanations, behavior logic, and output summary. It is information-dense and front-loaded, with every line contributing useful detail. It could be slightly tighter, but the structure is clear and appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the operational behavior, failure semantics, and return values in substantial detail. The main gaps are the missing base_url semantics and no indication of where reference screenshots come from or how they are managed. Still, the description provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly in most intended scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It provides meaningful semantics for pages, viewport, profile, align, threshold, max_changed_ratio, and max_images, but base_url is completely absent from the description, leaving one parameter undocumented. This partial compensation warrants a mid-range score rather than a higher one.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('Capture pages from the running site') and a specific resource ('reference screenshots') with a clear comparison method ('SSIM-compare'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like capture_set, compare_sets, or compare_images, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 parameter-level guidance (e.g., when to use profile for login-protected pages, how align changes behavior) but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as compare_sets or capture_set. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the agent is left to infer the appropriate selection context.

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