webtool_lighthouse

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool generates a report and identifies files without offering suggestions, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention performance impact, data retention, or cancellation behavior, which would be expected for a full-featured audit tool.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence accurately states the action and result; the second adds valuable detail about output precision. Every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters (all documented in schema), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid understanding of the tool's output and limitations. It lacks only minor details like typical execution time and error handling, but overall it is sufficient for initial use.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds general context about the report output but does not deepen understanding of specific parameters (e.g., why choose 'mobile' vs 'desktop' or which categories matter). Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: running a Lighthouse audit on a webpage to generate a comprehensive performance report. It specifies the exact output (file paths, resource sizes, metrics) and highlights what the tool does not do (offer improvement suggestions), setting it apart from siblings like webtool_performance_test.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use. Sibling tools exist (e.g., webtool_performance_test, webtool_web_vitals), but no differentiation criteria are provided.

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