analyze_fonts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only 'Check' operation but does not disclose if it makes network requests, requires any permissions, or has side effects beyond analysis.

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 a single sentence that effectively lists the key checks. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids fluff, though it could be slightly more structured with bullets for readability.

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?

The description covers what is analyzed but does not mention the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, this is a gap for a diagnostic tool. However, the list of checks provides adequate context for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'url' parameter described as 'The URL to analyze'. The description lists what is checked but does not add specific parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource 'font loading strategy', listing concrete aspects like Google Fonts preconnect and WOFF2 format usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_css or analyze_images.

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 analyzing font loading but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like analyze_css or run_lighthouse. No when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.

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