Analyze website design

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context by specifying it opens the site in Chromium and computes styles, which implies a real browser environment. It does not contradict annotations and provides some extra behavioral context, though it omits details like external resource loading.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the complete scope of extraction without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Open a website in Chromium') and enumerates outputs efficiently.

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 tool has 12 parameters, an output schema, and open-world behavior, but the description covers the core purpose sufficiently. The output schema handles return-value details, and annotations cover safety. The description could mention edge cases (e.g., inaccessible sites) but is complete enough for an agent to decide to use it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names the extraction outputs but does not add meaning beyond the parameter schemas. All 12 parameters are thoroughly described in the schema, so no compensation is needed.

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 extracts computed design tokens (color palette, typography, CSS variables, spacing/radius/shadow primitives) and reusable component families, using a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('website design'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_assets (raw assets) or analyze_html (markup structure).

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 the tool is for design-system analysis by listing the extracted elements, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or exclude cases. Sibling names provide context, but no explicit guidance is given. This is 'clear context, no exclusions', matching a 4.

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