Analyze page weight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing the static nature, the 30-resource limit, and capped/guarded requests. It doesn't mention exact output format or edge cases, but overall provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two concise, information-dense sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds key constraints efficiently.

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 simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is measured, resource categories, and limits. Return values are implied by 'counts and byte sizes', though nesting or exact response structure isn't specified. This is sufficient given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'url' parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline 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 the tool performs static page-weight analysis, enumerating specific resource categories (scripts, stylesheets, images, fonts, iframes) and largest third-party scripts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like measure_performance or audit_page.

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 implies usage for static resource-size analysis but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The cap of 30 resources hints at lightweight use, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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