pbi_page_sweep

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 transparently explains the heavy cost (10-30s+ per page), the waiting mechanism (canvas-ready cap 30s/page), the recording of loadMs and error scan, and the restoration of the original page. This covers the key behavioral traits adequately.

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 concise and well-structured, with the heavy warning placed upfront. Each sentence adds value, covering purpose, constraints, behavior, and output. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and constraints but does not explicitly state what the tool returns or yields (e.g., the recorded data). While it mentions recording loadMs, error scan, and cards fingerprint, the return format is unclear, leaving a small gap.

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 add meaning. It explains that 'pages' are the list of page names to iterate and 'errorScan' controls error scanning. This clarifies the parameters beyond their schema definition, though default values or formats are not detailed.

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 tool's purpose: performing a heavy health sweep by rendering each page, measuring load time, scanning errors, and recording a card fingerprint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_goto_page by emphasizing its deliberate, heavy nature.

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 advises using the tool as an intentional health sweep with a maximum of 2 pages per call and warns against casual use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for lighter navigation or performance checks, leaving the agent to infer when to use this vs. siblings.

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