quick_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently describes the stateless nature, navigation, screenshot capture, and extraction of page elements. However, it does not mention potential side effects like network requests or cookie handling, though for a scanning tool this is likely sufficient.

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 remarkably concise, front-loaded with 'Fast single-page scan,' and every sentence provides essential information. It covers the actions, the output, and the stateless nature without any fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the behavior and return type ('Returns everything to you for analysis'). It does not explicitly state return structure or error handling, but the core functionality is clear, and the statelessness is highlighted. Slightly more detail on response format would push it to a 5.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds general context about the tool's purpose but does not enrich the understanding of any specific parameter (e.g., how full_page or wait_ms affect the screenshot timing), so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Fast single-page scan' and details its actions: navigate, capture screenshot, extract interactive elements, headings, forms, and error messages. It distinguishes itself from sibling session-based tools by explicitly stating 'no session state required,' making its scope and resource clear.

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 for quick, stateless scans without the overhead of session management. It contrasts with sibling tools like start_session and step by highlighting the lack of session state, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use this tool.

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