Brutal Minion Ship Tribunal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe non-destructive audit. The description adds important behavioral context: the tool captures screenshots, saves a JSON dossier, and 'brutally roasts every failure in Minionspeak with exact evidence and evil repair orders'. This goes far beyond the annotations and tells the agent exactly what kind of output to expect. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences: first sets the trigger scenario and lists what the tool does, second adds technical constraints, third provides a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place. No filler. Front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema. For a complex audit tool, the description covers the usage scenario, the exact scope of the audit, the behavior (crawling, capturing, saving, roasting), and the prerequisite. The output schema handles return values. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic info beyond the schema's own descriptions (which are already quite clear). The description summarizes the overall purpose but does not explain how each parameter affects the tool's behavior. At 100% coverage, a 3 is appropriate – the schema carries the burden.

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 states a specific verb ('crawls') and resource ('same-origin routes'), and then enumerates exactly what it captures: runtime, console, network, broken-image, layout, content, and accessibility failures. It clearly distinguishes from siblings that are about research, bun hunting, or roleplay, so an agent can tell when to use this vs. alternatives.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when Evil Boss or another coding agent claims a vibe-coded web app is done') and gives a prerequisite ('requires a running absolute URL such as http://localhost:3000'). It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives explicitly, but the context and siblings make it clear enough.

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