get_framework_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'extract' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific page states, potential errors if no framework is detected, or the format of the extracted state. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with web frameworks.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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, no output schema, and partial parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the extracted state looks like, error conditions, or dependencies, which are crucial for a tool dealing with framework-specific data extraction.

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 50% (one parameter has a description, one does not). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'hydration state' entails or how 'auto' detection works. With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb 'extract' and the resource 'Next.js/Nuxt.js hydration state from the page', which is specific about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_text' or 'take_snapshot', which might also retrieve page content but in different forms.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a page with a supported framework loaded, or compare it to siblings like 'get_page_text' for general content extraction.

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