parse-analytics-beacons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'capture and parse' without revealing that the tool may navigate to a page, wait for beacons, or simulate clicks (as implied by the waitTime and simulateClick parameters). Potential side effects, prerequisites, or limitations are omitted, leaving the agent without critical operational context.

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 with no wasted words. It gets straight to the point, which is ideal for quick scanning. Despite its brevity, it effectively conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavioral context, but it remains minimal. It does not mention what the parsed output looks like, how the tool handles multiple beacons, or the role of the optional parameters (waitTime, simulateClick). Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate its behavior.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3 even without additional context from the tool description. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions 'beacons' without tying it to the parameters. Thus, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no incremental value.

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 function: capturing and parsing Adobe Analytics and Experience Platform beacons on a webpage. It uses specific verbs ('capture', 'parse') and names the exact platforms, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'track-marketing-beacons' or 'analyze-analytics-platforms'.

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 by specifying the platforms (Adobe Analytics and Experience Platform), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no direct comparison or exclusion of sibling tools, so the guidance remains implicit rather than actionable.

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