Monitor a webpage for changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns only a short snippet, not full content, for cost efficiency. It also implies statefulness by referencing 'the last check.' However, it does not explain what constitutes a change, how state is stored, or behaviors around forceBrowser or ignoreRobots parameters, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 two sentences, directly stating purpose, return behavior, and the cost rationale. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently communicates the essential 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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the return type (changed boolean and snippet) but omits meaningful detail about how state is tracked, what parameters like forceBrowser and ignoreRobots do, and the structure of the snippet. Given the tool's complexity, the description leaves too many operational aspects unexplained.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only 'selector' has a description). The tool description adds meaning to the selector param by referencing 'subtree,' but it provides no explanation for url, forceBrowser, or ignoreRobots. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving their semantics unclear.

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: checking whether a page or subtree has changed since the last check. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('page or subtree'), and the return type (changed=true/false) further clarifies the purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like web_check or web_scrape.

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 phrase 'so repeated monitoring stays cheap' implies this tool is intended for repeated/watchful usage, offering a mild usage guideline. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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