audit_lcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must indicate safety. The verbs 'Scan' and 'estimate' imply a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no files are modified or whether any external dependencies are needed.

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 entire description is one sentence that conveys the core action and purpose. 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?

The description omits what the tool returns (e.g., a report, list of files, or metrics). Without an output schema, the agent must infer the result format. It also doesn't mention any preconditions or limitations (e.g., npm project, HTML files).

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?

The only parameter (directory) is fully documented in the schema with 'Absolute path to the project root'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and a resource ('project directory') with a clear objective ('for unoptimized images') and outcome ('estimate LCP savings'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools that focus on asset migration, alt text generation, responsive tags, and cropping.

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 implies a use case (auditing a project for LCP improvement) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like migrate_assets or generate_alt. It lacks exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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