web_optimize_offline_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: output is content-addressable assets written to outputDir, deduplication uses hard links, compression produces .gz/.br files, and an optional preview server can be launched. However, it never says whether the source target is modified in place, whether network access is required for URL targets, or what the tool returns (server URL, summary report, nothing), which are the traits an agent most needs for a mutating, 7-parameter 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?

It is a single sentence, so it is compact, but it is a run-on that front-loads jargon ("SHA-256 Content-Addressable Storage (CAS)") and marketing adjectives ("built-in high-performance") instead of the one thing an agent needs first: when to call this and what it produces. Signal-to-noise is mediocre.

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?

Seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema — a case where the description must compensate, and it does not. The most consequential unknown is the return value: if startPreview is true, does the tool return the bound port/URL? The description also leaves open whether the tool is safe to re-run and whether it mutates the target directory.

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%, so every parameter including defaults is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the same concepts (deduplication, pre-compression, preview server) at a higher level without adding format, interaction, or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening clause states a verb and resource ("Optimizes offline site mirrors"), which is intelligible, but the rest is a feature inventory (CAS, Brotli/Gzip, HTTP/2 preview server) rather than a statement of purpose. Nothing distinguishes it from a sibling like web_clone_offline_mirror or web_inspect_pwa_cache, so an agent cannot confidently route between them from the text alone.

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 (does target need to already be a mirror, or can it be a live URL?), and no named alternative. The description reads as a capability list rather than invocation guidance.

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