analyze_website_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions 'reliable' and 'fast' modes but does not explain side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or potential resource consumption. The description is insufficient for full behavioral understanding.

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 front-loads the key action and output. It is concise and efficient, though it could be structured as more than one sentence for clarity. Minimal waste.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description mentions 'implementation-ready structured report with equivalent Markdown,' giving a clear picture of the output. No sibling tools, so additional context is not needed. The description is largely complete for its purpose.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by stating the tool runs audits for both mobile and desktop, which is not in the schema. This extra context improves parameter understanding beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool runs Lighthouse audits for both mobile and desktop, and produces a structured report with Markdown. It specifies the verb (runs), resource (Lighthouse audits), and output format, making the purpose 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, nor prerequisites or limitations. The description implies the 'reliable' mode is default but does not explain when 'fast' is appropriate. With no sibling tools, the lack of explicit when-not-to-use is a moderate gap.

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