util_login_surface_report

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

With no annotations provided, description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., makes live HTTP requests, requires a URL, rate limits, authentication needs). It only states purpose, leaving agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.

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?

A single sentence is concise but overly minimal. It could front-load the required input format (e.g., 'Provide a URL in arguments') to improve utility without adding much length.

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?

For a tool that likely performs live web inspection, the description lacks crucial context: input format, output structure, and behavioral constraints (e.g., no output schema, 0% schema coverage). Agent cannot safely invoke it.

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 0% and description does not explain what the 'arguments' object should contain (e.g., URL, options). Agent cannot infer how to properly invoke the tool.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Inspect' and resource 'auth surface signals' with specific examples (login forms, signup links, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like util_links_extract or util_forms_extract which have different foci.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives among many sibling utilities. The description implies its purpose but does not provide exclusionary criteria or preferred contexts.

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