identify-tag-managers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Analyze' without explaining how the analysis works, whether it loads the page, or what side effects (e.g., network requests) occur. This is a significant black box for an agent, as it does not know what happens behind the scenes.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 and no annotations, so the description needs to provide adequate context for what the tool returns or what constitutes a tag management system. It fails to do so, offering only a one-line summary that does not cover expected behavior or results, making it incomplete for a tool with these 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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (url and waitTime), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description itself adds no extra parameter details, but per rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 identifies the action ('Analyze') and the resource ('tag management systems (GTM, Tealium, etc.) on a webpage'), which is specific and distinctive. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find-marketing-technologies or analyze-analytics-platforms by explicitly focusing on tag managers.

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 implies usage when tag manager detection is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find-marketing-technologies or scan-marketing-stack. There is no mention of when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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