web_analyze_app_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about network fetching cost, how many requests it makes, whether it fails without sourcemaps, or how long a 25-chunk analysis takes. The only behavioral hint is the word 'forensically', which does not tell the agent what to expect operationally.

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 dense sentence with zero filler; the core action and the framework families are front-loaded. It is information-rich but slightly overloaded with parenthetical lists, which is acceptable given there is no other text.

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?

For a complex analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description names the deliverables at a high level (route topologies, state stores, inferred interfaces) but omits return shape, sourcemap dependency, and failure modes. It is minimally sufficient to select the tool but not to predict its output or cost.

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 both 'url' and 'maxScripts' are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no additional meaning such as what a script chunk is or how quality degrades below the default. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('forensically reconstructs client-side route topologies and global state stores') and names the frameworks it handles plus the artifacts it produces (TypeScript interfaces, action creators). It is clearly distinguished from a plain bundle decompiler, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with web_decompile_bundles or web_reconstruct_schema.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The agent must infer usage from the phrase 'forensically reconstructs', with no prerequisites (e.g. whether sourcemaps must be present) or alternatives named.

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