Generate the audit gallery contact sheet

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it builds a file, aggregates runs, and returns a path. It does not mention whether it overwrites an existing gallery.html, whether authentication or existing captures are prerequisites, or what happens on failure. These gaps keep it at a 3.

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 three sentences, with the first front-loading the core purpose and details of the artifact. Nothing is redundant; the list of fields and linkage to full-resolution files earns its place, and the final sentence on return value is concise. No fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input scoping, the content of the generated gallery, and the return value. It could mention prerequisites like the existence of captures or overwrite behavior, but these are not essential for basic correct usage.

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 already covers the 'run' parameter with 100% coverage, explaining its purpose and default behavior. The description merely restates 'Aggregates every run unless you scope it to one', adding no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Build' and names the precise resource '.agent-eyes/gallery.html', then details its contents (sortable contact sheet, fields like URL, viewport, tool, selector, timestamp, dimensions, issue count). This clearly distinguishes it from capture and audit siblings like capture_page_screenshot or matrix_responsive_audit, which focus on taking screenshots or analyzing them rather than aggregating them into a gallery.

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 clear context: it aggregates all runs unless scoped to one, and returns a path for a human to open. This implies it is used after captures are taken, for human review. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or provide 'when-not-to-use' guidance, so it misses the full 5 level.

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