check_changes

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the use of Playwright for browsing, the process of capturing and diffing content, and that it returns changes. This goes beyond a simple 'check changes' and gives insight into side effects like network access and comparison logic. However, it does not reveal exact return format or behavior when no changes exist.

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 sentence that is action-packed and front-loaded. Every phrase adds value, and it avoids filler.

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 is simple with one fully documented parameter. The description covers the core workflow and output intention. It lacks detail on return structure and error cases, but for a tool this simple with a full schema, it is sufficient. Not as complete as the model example, but a solid 4.

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 schema fully describes the url parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the qualifier 'monitored URL' which aligns with the parameter's mention of 'previously registered', but it does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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: browsing a monitored URL and returning changes. It uses specific verbs (browse, capture, diff, return) and names the resource (monitored URL). It distinguishes from siblings like monitor_page and analyze_change by focusing on the checking action.

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 implies the tool is for already-monitored URLs (browsing a 'monitored URL'), and the parameter description adds the prerequisite 'must be previously registered'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over analyze_change. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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