analyze_website_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It fully discloses that audits are run on both mobile and desktop, and explains the mode parameter behavior (fast runs once, reliable runs three times with medians). It does not mention nondestructive nature explicitly, but for a read-only analysis tool, this is adequate.

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, well-framed sentence that immediately conveys core functionality. No extraneous words.

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 the tool has two parameters with full schema coverage and an output schema (though not shown), the description provides sufficient context: it mentions the output format (structured report + Markdown). It lacks discussion of error handling or output structure details, but is generally complete for a baseline assessment.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates the default mode but does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it runs mobile and desktop Lighthouse audits, specifying the verb ('runs'), resource ('Lighthouse audits'), and output ('structured report with Markdown'). No siblings to differentiate, but it is unambiguous.

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. The description implies usage for performance auditing but lacks recommendations for mode selection (fast vs reliable) or prerequisites like URL validity. The parameter descriptions provide some context but not full usage guidelines.

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