analyze_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only says 'Analyze... for optimization opportunities' without clarifying whether the tool modifies resources, requires network access, or has rate limits. This leaves uncertainty about side effects or permissions needed.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is concise with no redundant wording.

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 4 parameters including enums and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'optimization opportunities' means (e.g., returns list of large images, unused CSS). It also does not explain the relationship to many sibling tools, leaving the agent without enough context to decide correct usage.

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%, and parameter descriptions in the schema are already informative (e.g., 'URL to audit', 'Device to emulate'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond confirming the tool's purpose, so it meets the baseline but does not excel.

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 analyzes website resources (images, JS, CSS, fonts) for optimization opportunities. It specifies the resource types, differentiating from generic audit tools, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like find_unused_javascript or get_lcp_opportunities which have narrower focus.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many siblings covering specific performance areas (e.g., check_performance_budget, get_accessibility_score), the description should indicate when analyze_resources is appropriate (e.g., for a broad resource audit) and when to use specific tools instead.

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