inspect_rendered_page

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full weight for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'walks React/Vue dev internals' and requires the dev server, which are important constraints. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what happens on error (e.g., if the dev server is not running), or performance implications. This leaves some gaps beyond what the context signals provide.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the tool, second explains the internal mechanism, third lists input options, fourth covers output format and prerequisite. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, 21 siblings), the description covers the main use case, prerequisite, and key distinction from render_component. It lacks explicit description of the output format beyond 'text-only output' and does not discuss error scenarios or edge cases. An example of the output would improve completeness, but it is still adequate for an agent to decide when to invoke.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between component, route, and url: 'Give a catalog component, a route, or a raw url.' This clarifies that these are alternative ways to specify the target page, which is not obvious from the schema alone. The settleMs parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema handles it.

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: 'open a live page and report which CATALOG components are actually mounted on it, mapped back to their source files.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting 'Text-only output (use render_component for a screenshot).' The verb 'inspect' and the resource 'rendered page' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear usage guidance: 'use it to go from the thing I see on screen to the file I should edit without grepping.' It mentions an alternative tool (render_component) and a prerequisite (dev server must be running). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like check_page or find_component_usages, which could also be relevant.

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