analyze_javascript

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses Playwright JS coverage and finds specific script types and their load time impact. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature or any side effects, though it is implied to be non-destructive.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details. It is front-loaded with the main action and lists specifics, though slightly dense.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool analyzes and the types of results. It lacks explicit output format details but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a clear description for 'url'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameter itself, thus baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool analyzes JavaScript using Playwright JS coverage, specifying exactly what it finds (unused JS, render-blocking scripts, large bundles, third-party scripts) and their impact on load time. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_css or analyze_html.

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 JavaScript performance analysis but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_css or analyze_images. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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