run_lighthouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return of scores and report path, and the browser prerequisite. However, it does not describe failure behaviors (e.g., Lighthouse errors), potential side effects, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 at about five lines, front-loading the main purpose and using clear bullet-like structure for parameters. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter without losing information.

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 presence of an output schema (which presumably documents return values), the description covers inputs, default behaviors, and prerequisites adequately. It does not address all edge cases (e.g., network failures), but for a straightforward audit tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 4 parameters. It does so by explaining `url` (the audited URL), `categories` (valid set and default), `form_factor` (mobile or desktop), and `output_path` (where to save, temp file if empty). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Audit `url` with Lighthouse and return scores + report path,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from all siblings, which are browser automation and network tools with no overlap.

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 explains parameter defaults and explicitly notes the prerequisite that the browser must have remote-debugging exposed, which is a clear usage condition. It does not discuss when to avoid using this tool, but the purpose is distinct enough from siblings that this is not a major gap.

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