Check Browser/Runtime Compatibility

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool fetches live data from MDN Web Docs and caniuse.com, hinting at network dependency and potential latency. It does not mention rate limits or data freshness, but overall provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 purpose and data sources, followed by usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence is essential and there is no verbosity.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description covers purpose, sources, usage, and input hints. It does not describe the return format, but the tool fetches live data and likely has standard formatting. The optional parameters (environments, tokens) are explained in the schema but not in the description; however, the schema descriptions are clear, so this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use effectively.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of feature values (e.g., 'CSS container queries', 'Array.at()') and clarifying that it takes a feature string not a library name, filling a semantic gap not covered by the schema alone.

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 checks compatibility for web APIs, CSS features, and JavaScript syntax against browsers and runtimes, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like gt_get_docs and gt_best_practices by scoping to compatibility questions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('when the question is specifically about which browsers or runtimes support a feature') and when not to use ('For general library docs or best practices, use gt_get_docs or gt_best_practices instead.'), naming specific alternatives.

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