plugin_analyze_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behaviors: 'Opens the URL in a new tab, captures network traffic and WebSocket frame content, probes the page for frameworks...' It also extensively documents the return structure (auth methods, API classifications, frameworks). Minor gap: doesn't specify if the tab remains open after analysis or resource cleanup behavior.

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?

Information-dense and properly front-loaded with the [Disabled] status flag and primary action. While lengthy due to enumerating return values (auth methods, API protocols, frameworks, storage keys), this enumeration is necessary given the absence of an output schema. No wasted sentences, though the list format could improve scannability.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides exceptional completeness by exhaustively detailing return values: listing specific auth methods (JWT, Bearer, CSRF, etc.), API protocols (REST, GraphQL, tRPC, etc.), framework detections (React, Vue, Angular, etc.), and tool suggestion formats. This fully compensates for missing structured metadata.

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%, providing detailed descriptions for both 'url' ('URL of the site to analyze') and 'waitSeconds' ('Seconds to wait for API calls after page load'). The description mentions 'Opens the URL' implying the url parameter but does not add semantic meaning, constraints, or usage guidance for parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.

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 opens with the specific action 'Comprehensively analyze a web page to produce actionable intelligence for building OpenTabs plugins' (specific verb + resource). It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning this as 'Phase 2 of the plugin development workflow' and contrasting it with the 'build-plugin skill' for the complete guide.

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: 'Use this when starting to develop a new plugin for a website.' It also provides clear workflow context ('Phase 2') and names a specific alternative: 'For the complete step-by-step guide... use the build-plugin skill.'

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