page_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (JSON inventory, deduplicated, absolute URLs) and notes it is 'cheap' and 'Free'. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are relevant for a fetch tool.

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 concise, with every sentence adding value. It front-loads the core purpose, lists asset types, and provides usage context without redundancy.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers what assets are included, the output format, and deduplication. It does not detail the JSON structure, but for a simple inventory tool, this is sufficient. It also contrasts with loading the full page, providing context against sibling tools.

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% with one parameter 'url' described as 'URL to fetch (http:// or https://).'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it fetches a URL and returns a JSON inventory of all referenced assets (images, stylesheets, scripts, fonts, icons, media) with absolute URLs and deduplication. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_html or page_links.

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 explicitly says it's 'Ideal for auditing or migrating a site' and 'instead of loading the page into context'. This provides clear use cases, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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