inspector_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the runtime prerequisite and the return shape (title, url), implying a safe read. It says nothing about what happens when no pages are available, whether the call blocks, or how the `wait` parameter affects timing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields, then the prerequisite. No padding, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter.

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?

There is no output schema, so naming the returned fields is valuable, and the prerequisite is covered. Missing is any handling of the undocumented `wait` parameter or what an empty page list looks like, so it is only adequately complete for a 2-parameter tool.

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 only 50%: `all` is documented in the schema, but `wait` is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description adds no meaning to either parameter. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("List the pages that Safari offers to the Web Inspector") and names the returned fields, which separates it from inspector_raw. It does not explicitly contrast with that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives a prerequisite ("Safari must be running with a page open") and points to safari_ready as the way to satisfy it, which is useful routing. However, it never says when to use this versus inspector_raw or the other inspector tools, and gives no exclusions.

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