scan_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the site is created if untracked, the default wait duration (30-60 seconds), and the async polling option. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or return structure details.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. No filler or redundancy.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main workflow, async option, and time expectation. It could mention return value structure (e.g., performance metrics object) but remains reasonably complete for a simple scan tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds valuable context: the url parameter triggers site creation if needed, and the wait parameter explains the sync vs async tradeoff. The strategy parameter is not elaborated but is well-documented in the schema.

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 triggers a PageSpeed Insights scan for a single URL, creating the site if needed. It distinguishes from bulk_scan and other sibling tools by focusing on a single URL scan with optional async behavior.

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 provides guidance on the wait parameter (default synchronous vs async polling) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like bulk_scan or compare_snapshots. It lacks 'when to use' and 'when not to use' guidance.

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