analizza_pagine_salvate

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the no-network guarantee, that input is single files or folders, and the non-obvious page-type inference behavior with `sito` as a fallback label. It stops short of describing the response shape, but the output is partially implied ('campi SEO, vocabolario, stile e intenzione, estratti').

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?

Front-loads the sibling comparison and the offline rationale, so the agent gets the key differentiator immediately. Somewhat dense with parentheticals and the closing rules sentence, but every clause carries 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?

Given no output schema and 3 undocumented params, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, offline behavior, page-type resolution, and roughly what the analysis returns. The only material omission is the meaning of `caratteri_per_pagina`.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies `percorsi` (single files or folders) and explains `sito` as merely a label for pages that don't declare their address — genuinely non-obvious semantics. However `caratteri_per_pagina` (default 600) is left completely unexplained, leaving a real 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 ('analizza') and resource ('pagine .html salvate dall'utente'), and anchors it against the sibling analizza_seo_site ('Stessa analisi di...'). The offline/no-network scope makes it trivially distinguishable from the live-site sibling.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it — 'per i siti che bloccano gli strumenti automatici o costruiscono le pagine con JavaScript' — which implicitly routes live, accessible sites to analizza_seo_site. It also names a downstream obligation (controlla_somiglianza before applying) and inherits analizza_seo_site's usage rules.

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