Sum asset bytes by kind and compare explicit initial-load and total budgets to check whether page resources exceed performance limits.
Sum supplied resource bytes by kind and compare explicit initial-load and total budgets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assets | Yes | ||
| initialPaths | No | ||
| totalBudgetBytes | No | ||
| initialBudgetBytes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the computation sums by kind and evaluates two explicit budget thresholds, which is useful behavioral context. It stops short of stating what happens when a budget is exceeded or how results are reported.
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 front-loaded sentence with the core verb first and zero filler. Every clause carries information about what is summed and what is compared.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does not say whether the result reports per-kind totals, pass/fail against each budget, or overage amounts. Combined with 0% schema description coverage on a nested assets array, the definition leaves gaps an agent must guess at.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It implicitly clarifies kind ('by kind'), initialPaths ('initial-load'), and both budget parameters, and 'resource bytes' points at the bytes field. It still leaves the assets object structure and the precise meaning of initialPaths (which paths count toward initial load) unexplained.
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 states a specific verb+resource pair: sum supplied resource bytes by kind, then compare against initial-load and total budgets. That is far more precise than the bare tool name. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the many other asset-analysis siblings such as compare_design_assets or validate_asset_manifest.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to reach for this tool or compare_design_assets when a bytes/budget question arises.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.