Analysiere Call-to-Actions

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 only states that it 'finds and analyzes' CTAs, without mentioning side effects, permissions, return format, or limitations. The read-only nature is implied but never explicit.

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 short sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately concise with no redundant information, though it could have included more detail without becoming verbose.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description remains incomplete. It doesn't clarify what the analysis yields (e.g., a list, scores, categories) or what behavioral expectations exist, leaving the agent guessing about the result.

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 input schema already provides a description for postId ('Post/Page ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Findet und analysiert CTAs auf einer Seite' (finds and analyzes CTAs on a page). It identifies a specific resource (CTAs) and scope (a page), distinguishing it from sibling tools like readability or layout analysis. A clear verb-resource pairing earns high marks.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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