analyze_website

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

Describes the components and output, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., network requests, external service calls) or required permissions. With no annotations, description carries the burden, and it provides only high-level transparency.

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?

Single sentence effectively summarizes the tool's functionality, no redundant words, and is front-loaded with 'Full performance analysis'.

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's complexity (multiple sub-analyses) and one required parameter, the description provides a clear overview of inputs and outputs. However, it could specify the structure of the returned prioritized list, especially since no output schema exists.

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 clear description for the URL parameter. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Clearly states it performs a full performance analysis combining multiple tools (Lighthouse, PSI, headers, HTML, CMS) and returns prioritized improvements. Distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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?

Implies usage for comprehensive performance audit, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus individual tools like analyze_css or run_lighthouse. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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