Prüfe Bild-Performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what is analyzed (size, format, lazy-loading) but does not disclose what the output looks like, whether it is read-only, how results are returned, or whether it checks a specific post's content or featured images. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without any extraneous content. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat sufficient for basic selection, but it lacks critical context about the return value/format, what 'size, format, and lazy-loading' entails (e.g., thresholds, recommendations), and how it fits into an image performance audit workflow. More detail on the output would make it fully 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 coverage is 100% with the 'postId' parameter described as 'Post/Page ID'. The description does not add any further parameter semantics, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description indirectly implies the post scope but doesn't explicitly connect it to the parameter.

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: 'Analysiert Bilder auf Größe, Format und Lazy-Loading' (Analyzes images for size, format, and lazy-loading). It uses a specific verb (analysiert) and resource (Bilder/images), and the aspects analyzed (size, format, lazy-loading) make it distinct from sibling tools like a11y_check_images or image_analyze_optimization.

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, intended use cases, or mention any sibling tools. The tool name and title imply a performance check, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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