uxpass_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses synchronous execution, determinism, the check set, return fields (run id, status, UX Score, summary), and idempotent retry behavior (was_duplicate). It does not mention error handling or authentication, but coverage is good overall.

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 concise (5 sentences) and well-structured: purpose first, then details, parameter guidance, and return information. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, parameters, behavior, and return fields. It is complete for the tool's level of complexity.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds value by clarifying that pack_name resolves to a URL, url takes precedence, hats is ignored, and task_id is for idempotency with a recommended format.

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 runs a UI/UX quality check synchronously against a URL, listing the specific check set (HTTP, HTML, accessibility, etc.). It differentiates from sibling pass tools (e.g., copypass_run, seopass_run) by specifying the uxpass-core scope.

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 explains when to use 'url' vs 'pack_name', notes that 'hats' is ignored, and describes the idempotency key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when to use uxpass_status instead) or compare to alternatives.

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