diagnose_pixel_on_site

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 the tool performs a headless browser check and lists what is checked, but does not disclose whether any state modification occurs or what side effects exist. The read-only nature is inferred from 'diagnose' but not explicitly confirmed.

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 four concise sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose statement, list of checks, prerequisite, and parameter definitions. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant 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?

The description lacks details about return value format (e.g., pass/fail per check, error messages) and does not address error conditions or performance. Given no output schema, the agent has insufficient information about what to expect after invocation.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters: url is the website URL to check, pixel_id is an optional specific pixel ID to look for. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions, especially given 0% schema description coverage in the context signals.

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 it diagnoses pixel installation via headless browser check and explicitly lists the checks performed (pixel script presence, consent blocking, Lead event setup, Complianz status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pixel_info or get_pixel_events which retrieve data rather than diagnose installation.

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 mentions a prerequisite (browser MCP/Puppeteer availability) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Usage is implied by the diagnostic nature.

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