seopass_lighthouse_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool builds a plan but does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, whether it requires authentication, how it interacts with SEOPass, or what side effects or outputs to expect. It hints at a distinction from a live-readonly sibling but does not describe its own behavior.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling contrast follows immediately to guide selection. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a fully described schema and no annotations.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and its relationship to seopass_run, and the schema fully documents the three parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves key behavioral details unstated, such as whether the plan is read-only, what it returns, or how it should be used after being built. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the url, strategy enum, and categories array. The description adds only the context that the URL is a SEOPass target and that this is Lighthouse-related, which is largely redundant with the schema's own 'Lighthouse' references. With complete schema coverage, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Build the heavier Lighthouse execution plan for a SEOPass target URL.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling seopass_run by contrasting 'heavier Lighthouse execution plan' with 'lightweight live-readonly verdict.' An agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

The description names the alternative tool seopass_run and describes its role as emitting a 'lightweight live-readonly verdict,' which implies this tool is for heavier planning. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus seopass_run or state any exclusions. The contrast is clear but not as directive as an explicit 'use this when...' guideline.

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