website_green

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

Annotations only say it is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation; the description adds real substance on top: it mints a scope session under basic auth, returns serve_choice_required/host_question when both Dockerfile and compose exist with empty serve_with, and never runs Docker or emits secrets. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries some information, but the prose is telegraphic and fragmented, stacking negations and undefined internal terms ('Pour is on', 'A describe 200 is not this check') that add cognitive load without clear payoff.

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 install/serve/verify tool with an output schema, the description covers auth side effects, the Docker-vs-Python branch, and the flow-control return signals — but leaves target_dir unexplained and relies on undefined vocabulary an agent cannot resolve from the definition alone.

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 has to carry the load; it does supply the enum-like domain for serve_with ('python or docker', empty triggers the choice prompt), but target_dir is never mentioned, and the text introduces unrelated identifiers (doc_key, src_keys, Pour, host_question) that are not parameters and could be mistaken for arguments.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb chain ('Install, start, and check the catalog page') and explicitly separates itself from smoke_test_zeus, so an agent can place it among the many smoke/diagnostic siblings. The resource is still described in domain jargon ('catalog page', 'green'), which costs it the top score.

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?

It names two siblings it is NOT (smoke_test_zeus, smoke_test_agent) but never states the positive condition under which an agent should pick this over readiness_check, doctor, or start_project. The implicit usage ('use when you want the site up and the catalog verified') must be inferred.

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