Prüfe Mobile-Freundlichkeit

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only analysis ('analysiert') but does not disclose what the analysis returns, whether it modifies anything, or any side effects. The single sentence lacks behavioral detail beyond the implication of non-mutation.

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 is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core function without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and only a one-sentence description, the tool lacks critical context about return values, scope of analysis, or criteria used. The low complexity of one parameter does not compensate for the absence of expected output information, making this insufficiently complete for an agent.

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 fully describes the only parameter (postId as 'Post/Page ID') with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already covers it, the baseline 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 states a clear verb ('analysiert') and resource ('Content') with a specific goal ('Mobile-Optimierung'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on mobile-friendliness, though it could be more specific about what aspects of mobile optimization it checks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_get_responsive_settings or ux_analyze_readability. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent without decision support.

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