analyze_information_architecture

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

The description indicates an analysis/suggestion behavior but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden, but it adds some context beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and scope. No redundant or filler content. Every word adds value.

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 description covers the input parameters adequately but does not describe the output format or return value (no output schema). For an analysis tool, the agent would benefit from knowing what the suggestions look like (e.g., list, report). Also, the format of 'site_structure' is not clarified.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description enhances meaning by explaining what the tool reviews (navigation, labeling, etc.), which contextualizes how the parameters are used beyond their names and basic descriptions.

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: to analyze and suggest improvements to information architecture, specifically reviewing navigation, labeling, hierarchy, and content organization. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other analysis areas like accessibility or performance.

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 IA analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives. While siblings cover different domains, no when-not-to-use or comparative context is provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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