resource_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded). The description only describes output, not 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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with 'Full resource breakdown', immediately conveying purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists what the tool returns (transfer size, type breakdown, requests, top 10, render-blocking). Could mention result format (JSON) but not required for basic completeness.

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?

Single parameter 'url' with 100% schema coverage. Description adds example format (http://localhost:3000) but schema already provides format=uri and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers the meaning, and description adds marginal 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 it performs a 'full resource breakdown' listing specific metrics (transfer size, type breakdown, requests, top 10, render-blocking). It distinguishes from siblings like performance_audit by focusing on resource loading rather than overall performance scores.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., performance_audit, lighthouse_audit). The description implies it's for identifying heavy resources, but lacks when-not or comparison to sibling tools.

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