qc_run_checklist

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions sequential execution and pass/fail/warn results, but omits details like network impact, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by list of checks and outcome description. No unnecessary words, well-organized.

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?

No output schema, so description should detail return format. It says 'returns a pass/fail/warn result for each check' but lacks specifics (e.g., structure, error handling). Adequate for simple output but incomplete.

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%, but description adds meaning: explains checks like 'copy quality (em dashes, banned words)' and clarifies the optional 'checks' parameter allows subset selection. This enriches the schema info.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs a sequential QC checklist against a website URL, listing all checks performed. Distinguishes from siblings like qc_check_api and qc_copy_audit by its comprehensive, sequential nature.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (for website QC) and implies comprehensive analysis. No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but sibling tools have different purposes (API check, copy audit) making the context clear.

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