Website Autonomous MCP

by rootellect

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as run_accessibility_check versus run_accessibility_audit, or inspect_page versus get_console_errors and get_network_errors. The lack of clear boundaries between generic audit tools and their specific variants makes it hard to select the right tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, e.g., get_project_summary, create_commit, run_lint, audit_page_seo. The verbs vary (get, run, audit, analyze, generate) but the structure is uniform.
Tool Count1/5
With 78 tools, the server far exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a broad 'website autonomous' purpose, the tool surface is excessively granular, with many near-duplicate audit/analysis functions.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from project analysis, git operations, validation, testing, deployment, and extensive auditing (design, accessibility, SEO, performance, conversion, diagnostics). Minor gaps exist, such as lack of an actual rollback tool (only rollback_deployment returns safety status) and no branch listing/deleting, but these are workable.
Average 2.5/5 across 78 of 78 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
Tools from this server were used 16 times in the last 30 days.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Audit structured data' with no information about side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, return format, failure modes, or impact. This is completely insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (four words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any substantive detail, making the sentence nearly useless. A concise description should still convey essential information; this one conveys only a vague action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the audit checks, what the return value contains, or how the parameters affect the outcome. This is a high-complexity tool with almost zero supporting context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose or expected values of the 'taskId' and 'pathname' parameters. The schema provides only names and types; the description adds no semantic meaning. The agent cannot infer what these parameters control or how they influence the audit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Audit structured data' essentially restates the tool name 'audit_structured_data' without elaboration. It fails to specify what structured data means, what kind of audit is performed, or what output/results are produced. The description also does not differentiate it from sibling tools like audit_metadata or run_website_audit, making its unique purpose unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over related audit tools among the sibling list. An agent would have no basis for selecting this tool over audit_metadata or run_website_audit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Check...', which doesn't reveal whether it's read-only, what it returns, what side effects occur, or what 'focus signals' refers to. This is a severe transparency gap for an agent invoking the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any supporting structure or additional details, making the brevity unhelpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool is woefully underspecified. The description contributes almost nothing to the agent's understanding of how, when, or with what parameters to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention taskId or pathname at all. It fails to explain what these parameters mean, whether they are required, or how they influence the check, leaving the agent without any guidance on invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check visible focus signals' is terse and uses vague jargon ('focus signals') without clarifying whether it's an accessibility check, UI state inspection, or something else. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like run_accessibility_check or test_keyboard_navigation, so its purpose remains ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description doesn't say when this tool should be used, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to alternatives. The sibling list contains many similar-sounding tools, but this description offers no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about side effects, return values, prerequisites, or whether the tool mutates state. The agent is left completely in the dark.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structurally simple, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single vague sentence is not a well-structured, informative description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent role in a multi-step workflow and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. There is no way to know what 'preparing' entails or how it relates to other operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the parameters (taskId, pathname) at all. The agent has no help understanding what these mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Prepare landing page task context' is nearly a restatement of the tool name. It names a verb and resource but doesn't specify what 'prepare context' actually does, nor does it distinguish from siblings like get_landing_page_context or prepare_website_edit_task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several similar prepare/validate/finalize tools, so clear usage context is essential but entirely absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only repeats the tool's name. There is no information about side effects, runtime implications, required inputs, output format, or safety profile, making the tool's behavior completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It contains no structural elements like usage scenarios or parameter context, and it fails to earn its place by providing any useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's ambiguous name, absence of annotations, lack of output schema, and two unexplained parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not cover basic aspects of what the tool does, when to use it, or what the parameters mean, making it almost useless for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (taskId, pathname) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. The agent is left guessing what 'taskId' and 'pathname' refer to and how they affect the diagnostics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run live diagnostics.' essentially restates the tool name, providing no specific verb or resource beyond the name itself. It fails to clarify what 'live diagnostics' encompasses or how it differs from related sibling tools like run_lint or get_console_errors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support among the many similar diagnostic tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, read-only nature, expected output, or constraints, resulting in a complete absence of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Although the description is a single sentence, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It provides no structural organization or added value beyond the tool name, so the sentence does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must supply substantial context. It fails to explain what 'CTA hierarchy' analysis involves, what inputs are needed, or what the output is, making it nearly useless for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain taskId or pathname. The one-line description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analyze CTA hierarchy' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'analyze_cta_hierarchy'. It names the resource but provides no additional detail about what CTA hierarchy means or how it differs from sibling analysis tools like analyze_page_design.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus other analysis/audit tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as requiring a taskId or pathname.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It provides zero information about whether the operation is read-only, what actions are performed, whether it modifies anything, or what the output looks like. The description is utterly uninformative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence that merely repeats the tool name does not provide enough substance for an agent to understand purpose, usage, or parameters. It earns a low score due to insufficiency, not effective brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate with at least a basic explanation of what an internal link audit entails, what the parameters control, and what results to expect. The description provides none of this, making it completely inadequate for a 2-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions nothing about the two parameters (taskId, pathname). The agent gets no meaning beyond the raw schema, so the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Audit internal links' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'audit_internal_links'. It states a clear verb and resource but adds no detail or distinction from sibling audit tools like audit_metadata or audit_page_seo, making it effectively a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternative tools, so the agent receives no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only repeats the tool's name. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, list of overflows), whether it performs any side effects, or what inputs it requires beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It merely restates the tool name without adding any new information, so the sentence does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The overall description is inadequate for a tool that likely checks pages for overflow issues. It lacks context about what constitutes horizontal overflow, how results are reported, and when to use this tool among the many related inspection and analysis tools. The presence of an optional pathname parameter and no output schema makes the description even more insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single 'pathname' parameter with a pattern and default, but the description gives no explanation of how or why it is used. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Detect horizontal overflow" is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'detect_horizontal_overflow', providing no additional specificity or distinction from sibling tools like detect_broken_images or run_visual_analysis. It fails to clarify what exactly is detected or in what context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_page or capture_responsive_screenshots. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, yet it says nothing about side effects, required state, output format, or whether it modifies anything. It is a bare restatement of the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified to the point of adding no value beyond the tool name. It does not 'earn its place' because it conveys zero additional information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide substantial context about expectations and outputs, but it offers none. The tool's role among many plan-generation siblings is entirely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists taskId and pathname with no descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention these parameters or explain their purpose, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate a design improvement plan' restates the tool name verbatim without elaborating on what constitutes a design improvement plan or how it differs from related tools like generate_website_improvement_plan or analyze_design_consistency. It is a tautology rather than a useful purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what taskId or pathname should be, or how it compares to alternatives. The description gives no context for selecting it over sibling planning tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'audits friction' without explaining what it does internally, whether it is read-only, what data it inspects, what it returns, or any side effects. This is a significant gap, especially since there is no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, which is superficially concise, but under-specification is not true conciseness. A single vague sentence does not adequately serve the agent; it could be expanded with meaningful details while still remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool exists within a large ecosystem of audit and analysis tools, but the description gives no context about its role, inputs, outputs, or integration with other tools. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no elaboration on what 'friction' means, making the description insufficient for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes two parameters (taskId, pathname) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning or intended use of either parameter, the relationship between them, or how pathname's default '/' factors into the audit. Without any compensatory information, the agent cannot reason about parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('conversion flow'), but the phrase 'conversion flow friction' is vague and does not specify what aspects of the flow are examined or what constitutes friction. It is distinguishable from sibling audit tools like audit_page_seo or audit_metadata, though it could overlap with conversion-related analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., analyze_cta_hierarchy, analyze_product_discovery, generate_conversion_plan). It does not state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Audit heading hierarchy' with no information about whether the tool is read-only, what it checks, what it returns, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise compression. It omits critical details about the tool's function and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool performs an audit and has parameters, a complete description should explain what the audit checks, how to specify the target, and what output to expect. The single sentence is far from sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (taskId, pathname) but the description provides no explanation of their meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Audit heading hierarchy' identifies a specific resource (heading hierarchy) and a verb (audit), but it is vague about what aspects are audited (e.g., heading level order, missing h1, skipping levels). It does not clearly distinguish from sibling audit tools like audit_metadata or audit_page_seo beyond the topic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative audit tools. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It offers no information about side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, output format, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides almost no useful content to the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanation, the description is wholly inadequate. The agent cannot determine what the tool does, what it returns, or how to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (taskId or pathname). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Audit' and the resource 'page metadata', giving a basic sense of the tool's function. However, 'metadata' is ambiguous and there is no differentiation from sibling audit tools like audit_page_seo or audit_heading_structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of sibling audit tools implies a niche, but the description does not explain what qualifies as 'metadata' or when this should be chosen over other audit tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the tool's name without explaining what the audit does, what data it examines, what it returns, or any side effects. This is essentially missing behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only four words, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It lacks enough content for the agent to use the tool correctly, so the brevity is a deficiency rather than a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only minimal parameter names, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide necessary context about the audit scope, return value, or how to interpret results, making it impossible to use correctly without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (taskId, pathname) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'taskId' or 'pathname' mean in context, nor how they affect the audit. The agent must rely solely on the parameter names, which are insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('page SEO'), indicating the tool audits SEO for a page. However, it is vague about what aspects of SEO are covered, and given sibling tools like audit_heading_structure, audit_internal_links, and audit_structured_data, it does not distinguish itself clearly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many alternative audit tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals nothing except the name. It does not state whether the tool has side effects, what output it produces, or any other behavioral traits, making it impossible to anticipate its effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It restates the tool's name with minimal added information, failing to provide substantive content that would earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, leaving the description as the only source of context. With 2 parameters and a vague purpose, the description is far too minimal to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention taskId or pathname. The parameters are completely undocumented, and the description adds no semantic meaning to help understand their roles or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('finalize') and resource ('landing page task validation summary'), which distinguishes it from sibling finalize tools by scope. However, 'finalize' is vague and could mean producing a summary, marking completion, or committing something, so the exact action remains unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, preceding steps, or conditions for invocation, leaving the agent without context to choose this over similar finalize tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Generate conversion recommendations,' giving no indication of side effects, dependencies on prior analyses, data flow, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for the agent to predict the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise in length. However, it sacrifices substance for brevity, offering no operational detail. It does not earn its place as a standalone specification because it fails to inform the agent adequately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description must fill in what the tool does, requires, and returns. It does none of that, making it inadequate for invocation. The presence of related sibling tools suggests a complex workflow, but no context is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines taskId and pathname, but the description does not reference either parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description contributes no meaning about what these parameters represent or how they affect the generated recommendations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Generate[s] conversion recommendations,' which identifies a clear action and resource. However, it is vague about what constitutes a conversion recommendation or how it differs from sibling plan-generation tools like generate_diagnostic_plan or generate_seo_fix_plan. It does not specify the input context or output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus running an audit or analysis first, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. This leaves the agent without guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only gives a generic action. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, authentication needs, output format, or any constraints. This is effectively no transparency for an agent attempting to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is incredibly brief (one short sentence), but it lacks necessary detail. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; the single sentence does not add enough value to be considered well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a description that only states a vague action. For a tool that presumably generates a diagnostic plan, the description fails to cover the purpose, parameters, expected output, or usage conditions, making it completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (taskId and pathname) with no descriptions and 0% coverage. The description fails to explain what these parameters mean or how they influence the recommendation generation, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb and resource ('generate diagnostic recommendations') but is vague about what diagnostics or what recommendations. It does not provide scope or differentiate from sibling plan-generation tools like generate_performance_fix_plan or generate_website_improvement_plan, which are similarly named but more specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to alternatives. Given the large list of sibling tools for diagnostics, audits, and planning, the absence of context makes it impossible to determine the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing side effects, required context, output format, or any operational constraints, which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's placement among many plan-generation siblings, the description is far too thin. It lacks any detail about inputs, outputs, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema shows two parameters (taskId and pathname) with no descriptions, and the description provides zero information about them. At 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not even mention the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('generate') and a resource ('performance recommendations'), but it does not specify what performance refers to or how it relates to sibling plan-generation tools. It is not a tautology, but it lacks enough specificity to distinguish it from similar tools like generate_seo_fix_plan or generate_diagnostic_plan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies anything, what output to expect, or any side effects. The single sentence offers no transparency beyond the bare action, which is insufficient for an analysis tool that might interact with project state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. While it is efficient in wording, the lack of substance prevents it from earning a higher score; it is neither well-structured nor informatative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's two parameters, absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'performance signals' means, how the parameters affect behavior, or what return format is expected. This makes the tool nearly unusable without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains 'taskId' and 'pathname' with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention either parameter or explain their purpose, offering no semantic value. The agent is left to guess what 'taskId' refers to or how 'pathname' influences the analysis, making correct invocation unlikely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analyze script performance signals' provides a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool analyzes performance signals related to scripts. However, the term 'performance signals' is vague and lacks specificity about what metrics or aspects are examined, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_images' or 'run_lighthouse_audit'. It is not a tautology but lacks a well-defined scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither specifies typical use cases nor mentions any exclusions or prerequisites. With many sibling analysis tools available, the absence of usage context leaves the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, and 'deterministic' hints at consistent, rule-based checks, but it does not disclose whether a browser is used, what types of issues are found, or any side effects or requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It lacks necessary context for a tool with two parameters and no supporting documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns and when to use it. It does neither, making the tool largely opaque and incomplete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (taskId, pathname). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning, leaving the agent without guidance on how to provide valid values or how they affect the analysis.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Analyze') and resource ('page design issues'), but 'deterministic' is unclear and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like run_visual_analysis or analyze_design_consistency. The purpose is understandable but vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many overlapping analysis tools (run_visual_analysis, analyze_design_consistency, validate_brand_compliance), but the description offers no exclusions or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only states 'analyze', which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, return format, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence) with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. While it is front-loaded, it lacks the necessary detail to be considered appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'performance signals' refers to, what inputs are used for, or what the agent should expect as a result, making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of the taskId or pathname parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent with no guidance on what the inputs mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('analyze') and a resource ('images'), but 'performance signals' is vague and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like detect_broken_images or run_visual_analysis. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity about what performance signals are analyzed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context for selection. With siblings like run_lighthouse_audit and analyze_fonts covering related concerns, the absence of usage direction is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Run Lighthouse performance audit' reveals nothing about side effects, read-only nature, runtime impact, what the output contains, or whether it requires network access. This is a significant transparency gap for an execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits crucial details about parameters, outputs, and usage, making it too minimal to be considered well-structured. Every word is present, but the description fails to earn its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what taskId refers to, what pathname does, what the audit result looks like, or how it relates to other performance tools. The agent would have no guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (taskId, pathname). The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, leaving the agent to infer meaning from parameter names alone. taskId and pathname are not self-explanatory without context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: run a Lighthouse audit focused on performance. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools like run_accessibility_audit and audit_page_seo by specifying 'performance'. However, 'Lighthouse' could imply a broader audit, making the exact scope slightly ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_website_audit or analyze_performance. No mention of preconditions, such as needing a running preview or having a task context. The description offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'deterministic', hinting at repeatability, but does not mention side effects, permissions, return values, or what the check actually does, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It provides too little context to be useful, so while concise in form, it lacks the substance that good structure would require.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and dozens of siblings, the description is completely inadequate. It does not clarify the tool's role, expected inputs, or outputs, making it nearly impossible for an agent to know when or how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one optional parameter 'pathname' with a pattern and default, but the description does not explain its role or relationship to the visual checks. With 0% schema description coverage and no compensation in the description, the parameter's semantics are completely undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'run' with the object 'deterministic visual checks', giving a broad sense of purpose. However, it does not specify what these checks entail or how this tool differs from siblings like inspect_page or detect_horizontal_overflow, leaving the scope vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context, exclusions, or mention of alternative tools, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'analyze' without addressing side effects, read-only nature, or what inputs are accessed. The sparse description does not clarify whether the tool modifies anything or what data it relies on.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise but significantly underspecified. It front-loads the phrase 'product discovery path' without elaboration, making the brevity counterproductive. The string 'Analyze product discovery path.' is more of a placeholder than a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks any contextual framing. It does not explain what 'product discovery path' means in the context of the broader tool set, what output to expect, or how it relates to sibling tools like inspect_page or run_visual_analysis. With no output schema, the description must provide context but fails entirely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain taskId or pathname. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value, failing to compensate for the absent schema guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Analyze' with the resource 'product discovery path', which gives some specificity but remains vague about what exactly is analyzed and what the output is. It distinguishes from siblings by naming a unique resource, but the meaning of 'product discovery path' is unclear without further context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Validate' implies a check but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value might be, or what side effects occur on success or failure. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is indeed concise, consisting of one short sentence with no fluff. However, it is under-specified to the point where it provides minimal value. It earns its place only by naming the tool's action, but lacks structure to convey additional important context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a very simple input schema, the description still fails to cover essential context. It does not explain what prerequisites are, how validation is performed, what the expected outcome is, or any criteria. The description is incomplete for a validation tool that an agent needs to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention taskId or pathname or explain how they relate to 'prerequisites'. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names, leaving an agent without any insight into what values to provide or their purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Validate' and the resource 'landing page prerequisites', giving a general sense of the tool's purpose. However, 'prerequisites' is vague and does not specify what exactly is validated or how this differs from sibling validation tools like validate_changed_files or run_all_validation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any preconditions or contextual hints. The description is purely a statement of function without indicating scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Analyze,' implying a read operation, but does not mention return values, side effects, limitations, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool likely interacting with web content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, but structurally it is concise and clear in phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema, has no annotations, and the parameter information is absent from both schema and description. The description fails to provide essential context about inputs, outputs, or operational details, leaving a significant completeness gap even for a potentially simple analysis tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters ('taskId', 'pathname'). The agent is left guessing what these parameters mean and how they affect the analysis, making correct invocation difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analyze visible trust signals' states a verb and resource, but 'trust signals' is vague and undefined. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling analysis tools like run_visual_analysis or analyze_page_design, and lacks specifics on what constitutes trust signals or what analysis entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It says 'generate' but does not clarify side effects, whether it modifies state, how taskId and pathname are used, or what the output looks like. This minimal disclosure is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It avoids fluff but at the cost of necessary detail, making it closer to under-specification than effective brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, absence of output schema, and unclear parameter semantics, this description fails to provide adequate context. The tool likely requires task/page context, but the description does not explain any contextual inputs or expected outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of the two parameters (taskId, pathname). The agent cannot infer their meaning or usage from the description, so the tool's input semantics are completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate SEO fix recommendations' provides a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool produces SEO-related recommendations. It does not differentiate from sibling fix-plan tools like generate_performance_fix_plan, but the core purpose is discernible.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as audit_page_seo or run_lighthouse_audit. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states a read operation but does not explain what 'changed files' means, whether it includes staged/unstaged changes, or what the output format will be. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. A single vague sentence does not earn high marks for structure because it lacks substance and fails to inform the agent effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description must provide context about what changed files are returned (e.g., relative to what baseline, in what format). It does not, leaving the agent to guess among siblings like get_git_diff and get_git_status.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters to explain, this is acceptable and does not deduct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Return changed files' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It provides no scope, criteria, or distinction from sibling tools like get_git_diff or get_git_status, making it vague and uninformative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_git_diff, get_git_status, or validate_changed_files. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The word 'inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return values, error behavior, or what loading signals are examined. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, but conciseness is a separate dimension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter info, the description is largely incomplete. It provides only a high-level topic ('analytics loading signals') and leaves critical details absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has two parameters (taskId, pathname) with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention them at all. An agent cannot infer the meaning or format of these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states an action ('inspect') and a resource ('analytics loading signals'), but 'signals' is vague and the scope is unclear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling inspect_* tools, though the name hints at analytics health.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_auth_health or inspect_payment_health, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description gives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. It merely states 'Analyze caching performance signals' without explaining the output format, depth of analysis, or whether it modifies any state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too terse to be considered well-structured; it lacks any breakdown of how the analysis operates or what inputs are relevant, so it reads more as under-specification than deliberate conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description leaves many gaps: it doesn't state what 'caching performance signals' means, what the tool produces, or how taskId and pathname influence the result. A more complete description would clarify these aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero information about the two parameters (taskId and pathname). It neither explains their purpose nor how they affect the analysis, making it impossible for an agent to know what values to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('caching performance signals'), clearly indicating a caching-specific analysis. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_images or analyze_fonts, though it overlaps conceptually with run_lighthouse_audit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention whether the analysis is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified. It lacks necessary elaboration, though the brevity itself is not problematic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how to invoke the tool correctly, what signals are analyzed, or how results are delivered, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for taskId or pathname, and the description does not clarify their meaning. The 0% schema coverage and lack of parameter explanation leave the agent guessing about required inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action ('analyze') and subject ('font performance signals'), distinguishing it from sibling performance tools like analyze_images and analyze_scripts. However, 'performance signals' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what constitutes font performance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other performance analysis tools. The description lacks any contextual triggers, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'create' without mentioning side effects (e.g., branch creation in the local repo), error handling, idempotency, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence—but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks the minimal detail needed to be useful, making it more of a placeholder than a well-structured description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at least explain what 'taskName' does and what happens after creation. It does neither. The description is incomplete even for a simple tool, leaving the agent with more questions than answers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter, 'taskName', with no description (schema description coverage is 0%). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so the agent has no guidance on how to populate 'taskName'. This is a complete failure to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an ai task branch' uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('ai task branch'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_commit. However, it does not explicitly state that it creates a git branch or clarify the term 'ai task branch', leaving some ambiguity for an agent unfamiliar with the context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify whether it should be used before push_task_branch or if it overlaps with create_commit. Thus, the agent receives no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions 'commit when safe' and 'optionally create preview', hinting at conditional behavior and a possible write operation. However, it does not explain what 'safe' means, what happens if it is not safe, whether it requires special permissions, or how it handles protected files (despite the approvedProtectedChanges parameter).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main actions. It is efficient and avoids redundancy. However, it is so brief that it omits critical context, slightly reducing its effectiveness, but for what it includes, it is well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool that orchestrates validation, auditing, comparison, committing, and preview creation, yet the description is extremely minimal. There are no annotations and no output schema to clarify behavior or returns. The description does not explain the required parameters, the meaning of 'safe', or the role of approvedProtectedChanges, making it profoundly incomplete for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters are described in the tool description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The only hint is 'optionally create preview' which maps to createPreview, but taskId, commitMessage, and approvedProtectedChanges are entirely unexplained. The schema provides no descriptions, so the description fails to add meaning for the remaining parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly lists the tool's actions: validate, audit, compare, commit when safe, and optionally create preview. This indicates it is a multi-step finalization process for a multi-agent edit task, which is distinct from more specific siblings like validate_multi_agent_edit or create_commit. However, it does not explicitly name the resource or differentiate itself from these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus call the individual validation, comparison, or commit tools. The name 'finalize_multi_agent_edit' implies it is the final step, but the description does not state this context or mention any alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers only the vague statement 'Generate accessibility fix recommendations' without any behavioral details such as read-only nature, side effects, required permissions, or error conditions. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of transparency but fails to disclose anything beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is structurally concise, but it omits essential information. It earns its place as a purpose statement but does not contribute context beyond that, so conciseness is only partially satisfactory.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the presence of two undocumented parameters, the description is far too sparse to provide a complete operational picture. The agent would not know what inputs to provide or what a 'fix recommendation' entails, especially with multiple similar generation tools in the sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes two parameters (taskId, pathname) with no descriptions, and the tool description doesn't mention them at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent cannot infer parameter meanings or constraints from the description, leaving it completely unsupported.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Generate') and the resource ('accessibility fix recommendations'), which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like run_accessibility_audit or generate_seo_fix_plan, and the wording is close to a restatement of the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The bare one-liner does not mention prerequisites, context, exclusions, or sibling tools, so the agent has no basis for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. The verb 'Return' implies a read operation, but it does not state whether there are any side effects, permissions needed, or what 'source context' entails. This is minimal transparency for a read tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'source context' includes, how to use parameters, or what the return value will look like, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (taskId and pathname) with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not mention either parameter. There is no explanation of how they relate to the operation, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'landing page source context', making it clear this tool fetches source-level information for a landing page. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool get_homepage_context, but the resource name 'landing page' provides some distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_homepage_context or inspect_page. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool's purpose without explaining side effects, return values, how errors are collected, or whether it modifies the browser session. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. It could be slightly more expansive, but it does not waste words and effectively communicates the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks annotations, an output schema, and parameter descriptions, making the description the only source of context. The minimal sentence fails to clarify critical aspects such as what taskId refers to, how pathname influences inspection, or what format the console errors are returned in. Given the tool's likely complexity, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for 'taskId' or 'pathname', and the description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving agents to guess what these parameters mean and how they affect the inspection.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('browser console errors'). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_console_errors', which likely performs a similar function, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_console_errors' or 'inspect_network_failures'. There is no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred sequencing, so this dimension is poorly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'creates and prepares a scoped website edit task' without explaining what preparation involves, whether it modifies files or branches, or any side effects. The behavior is opaque, which is inadequate for a tool that likely orchestrates other actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, composed of a single sentence with no redundancy. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance—it is too short to convey the operation's scope or nuance. It earns its place by being concise, but the content is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and involves 4 parameters with a specific workflow context. The description is far too sparse to be complete; it does not explain what 'prepare' means, how it relates to subsequent tools like finalize_website_edit_task, or what outputs or state changes to expect. For a task-preparation tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'instruction', 'outputMode', 'targetPage', or 'approvedProtectedChanges', leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema names and defaults. This is below the baseline expected when schema coverage is low.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Create and prepare' with the resource 'scoped website edit task', clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like prepare_landing_page_task or prepare_multi_agent_edit_task, which could cause some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or other tools. The description provides no context about the intended workflow, prerequisites, or cases where this tool is preferable to alternatives. With many related prepare_* tools among siblings, this lack of guidance is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the safety trait 'non-destructive', which is useful, but it omits any details about what the audit actually does, how long it takes, what it returns, or whether it interacts with external systems. This is insufficient for a multi-agent tool with several parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a high-level summary, though it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. The structure is clean and immediately conveys the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, multiple agent types, no annotations, no output schema), the one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what 'multi-agent' entails, what the 'agents' parameter options mean, when includeLiveWebsite should be true, or what the output looks like. Sibling tools provide more detailed descriptions, making this one feel inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (agents, pathname, includeLiveWebsite). The schema itself provides enum values and defaults, but the description adds no semantic context to help the agent decide how to set these parameters. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run') and the resource ('website audit'), and specifies 'multi-agent' which distinguishes it from single-agent audit tools like run_accessibility_audit or run_lighthouse_audit. It is concise and the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'multi-agent' implies a comprehensive audit, the description does not state that it should be used for a broad audit or that specific audit tools should be used for targeted checks. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'validate', which implies a read-only check, but does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, output format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple purpose statement, though it lacks necessary detail for the tool's context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'brand resources' are, what the tool returns, or how the inputs affect behavior, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the two parameters, and the description does not mention taskId or pathname at all. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding, forcing the agent to rely on the bare schema types and default values, which are unhelpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (validate) and the object (page design) against a specific reference (brand resources). This distinguishes it from generic validation tools in the sibling list, though it could be more specific about what 'brand resources' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many other validation tools (e.g., validate_changed_files, run_all_validation). There are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool inspects failures but gives no information about read-only nature, output format, side effects, or required prerequisites, leaving the agent without critical context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words or fluff, earning the highest score for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is far from complete for a tool with no output schema and no annotation support. It does not specify what results are returned, how taskId and pathname interact, or any operational context, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not. The parameters taskId and pathname are not explained at all, and the description adds no semantic value beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'inspect' and the resource 'failed network requests', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the very similarly named sibling 'get_network_errors', so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_network_errors or inspect_browser_console. The description provides no context for selection among a large set of diagnostic tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions comparing screenshots but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it creates or modifies any artifacts, what inputs are required (e.g., existing screenshots), or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is structurally efficient and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, and the brevity results in a lack of important details. It is not verbose, but it does not earn its place as a complete tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide comprehensive context. It fails to explain what the comparison produces, how it fits into the surrounding workflow (e.g., after editing tasks), or any prerequisites. The description is inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'task' (mapping to taskId) but does not explain the purpose of 'pathname' or how the parameters relate to the comparison logic. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Compare') and the resource ('before and after screenshots for a task'). This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'capture_responsive_screenshots' or 'run_visual_analysis', though it does not elaborate on what 'compare' entails (e.g., visual diff, pixel comparison).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool relative to alternatives, any prerequisites, or scenarios where it should be avoided. This is purely a one-line purpose statement with no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names actions but fails to mention side effects (e.g., git commit, preview deployment creation), reversibility, required permissions, or failure modes. The term 'report' is also vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with action verbs. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme terseness limits its informational value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a multi-step mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, an 8-word description is grossly inadequate. It lacks details on validation scope, commit behavior, preview handling, and report contents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at createPreview via 'optionally preview'; taskId and commitMessage are completely unexplained. This is minimal compensation for a 3-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb list ('Validate, commit, optionally preview, and report') and identifies the resource ('a website edit task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling finalize tools by the resource type. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other finalization, validation, commit, or preview tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context indicating the appropriate point in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns console errors, implying a read operation, but does not explain what 'internal page' means, whether it navigates, what side effects exist, or any limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the core purpose without fluff. However, it is under-specified, which limits its usefulness despite being efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'internal page', or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (pathname) with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it at all. The agent is left without any explanation of what pathname does or how to format it beyond the pattern.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns console errors for an internal page, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_network_errors, but it does not explicitly differentiate from inspect_browser_console, which may overlap in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare with siblings such as inspect_browser_console or get_network_errors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'gated' without explaining what the gate involves, whether approval is required, side effects, or reversibility, offering little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain input expectations, return values, or the overall context needed for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. All three required parameters (previewUrl, approved, approvalText) are left unexplained beyond their raw schema constraints, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'request' with resource 'production deployment' and qualifier 'gated', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_preview_deployment. It conveys the action and scope without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rollback_deployment or create_preview_deployment. The schema hints at an approval flow but the description does not state prerequisites or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'safe text files' without explaining what that means. It does not cover read-only nature, return format, search behavior, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler, well-structured and front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it could provide more detail without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how parameters affect the search, what 'safe' includes, or what response to expect, making it incomplete for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not mention 'query', 'exclude', or 'include'. The agent has no semantic cues beyond the parameter names, so the description fails to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and a resource ('safe text files in the website repository'), which clarifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the scope is reasonably specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions. It only states the action, not the appropriate context or relative use against sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only implies a non-destructive check. It does not state whether it runs browser automation, what 'signals' are inspected, or what the output/return behavior is, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, and it front-loads the verb. However, it may be too terse to provide meaningful guidance, though conciseness itself is well-handled.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, the role of taskId/pathname, or how this tool fits into the accessibility testing suite, leaving agents without crucial context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two parameters (taskId and pathname) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention either parameter or how they relate to keyboard navigation testing, so agents receive no help in understanding parameter purposes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('keyboard navigation signals'), so it states what the tool does. However, 'signals' is vague, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like check_focus_visibility or run_accessibility_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description simply states what it does without explaining its role in the workflow or when it should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but only states the tool 'validates'. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, whether it can fail, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a validation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action word 'Validate'. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary context, which prevents a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain when to call it, what inputs mean in context, what the result looks like, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is minimal viable at best.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'taskId' and 'approvedProtectedChanges' are left entirely to the agent to infer from their names. The description mentions 'secrets' but doesn't connect them to any parameter, failing to compensate for the lack of schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool validates 'changed files and secrets' for a 'multi-agent task', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'validate_changed_files' by adding the multi-agent and secrets scope, though it doesn't detail what 'validate' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_changed_files' or 'finalize_multi_agent_edit'. No context is provided for how it fits into the multi-agent edit workflow, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'returns a healthy response' without explaining what 'healthy' means, how the check is performed, or what the output includes. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence, which is appropriately concise, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of essential details; a minimal viable description should still convey key behavioral and usage information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected behavior. The phrase 'healthy response' is vague and could refer to HTTP status, content, or performance, and no return value is described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines previewUrl as a required URI string, but the description adds no extra meaning. It does not clarify what URL formats or access requirements are expected, and with 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (verify) and the resource (preview URL), with a specific outcome (returns a healthy response). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_preview_status and run_live_diagnostics, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related checks like get_preview_status or run_live_diagnostics. The description does not specify necessary prerequisites, such as whether a deployment must exist or the URL must be publicly accessible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only implies a read-only action through the word 'analyze' but does not mention side effects, return format, permissions, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, with no fluff. Every word contributes to stating the purpose, which is an example of appropriate conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'design consistency' entails, what kind of output is produced, or how it fits with related tools, leaving a significant context gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters, taskId and pathname, and the description does not mention them at all. There is no explanation of their purpose or relationship to the task, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Analyze' and identifies the resource 'design consistency for a page,' so it conveys the core action clearly. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'analyze_page_design' or 'validate_brand_compliance,' and 'consistency' is left somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without any context such as typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Check', implying a read-only inspection, but provides no details on what is measured, how results are returned, or any side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, so it is concise, but it is also under-specified. While it avoids wordiness, the extreme brevity may hinder understanding, making it not fully 'appropriately sized' for the tool's context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and two unexplained parameters, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what 'touch target sizes' means, what standards are checked, or how the tool behaves, leaving too much ambiguity for an agent to confidently invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (taskId and pathname) lack descriptions in the schema, and the description does not explain their roles or how they affect the check. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings entirely implicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's specific purpose: 'Check mobile touch target sizes.' The verb 'check' and resource 'mobile touch target sizes' are precise, and this distinguishes it from sibling accessibility tools like run_accessibility_audit or test_keyboard_navigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention how it fits into a workflow or whether it should be used before other checks, leaving the agent without decision-useful context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool runs axe-core and custom checks, but does not reveal whether it is read-only, what it returns, if it modifies state, or any prerequisites. This is minimal transparency for an execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It delivers core information without padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain parameter usage, return behavior, or how it differs from closely named siblings. This leaves the tool under-specified for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention parameters 'taskId' or 'pathname' at all. It adds no meaning beyond the bare schema properties, failing to compensate for the absence of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'axe-core and custom accessibility checks', making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'run_accessibility_check', which likely serves a similar role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_accessibility_check' or 'run_lighthouse_audit'. The description only gives a general statement of function with no contextual cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers only 'deterministic' as a behavioral trait, which is vague and unexplained. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it loads a page, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that runs checks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded. The use of 'deterministic' adds nuance without extra words. Though brevity is good, it omits crucial context, so it is not a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, annotations, and the presence of many sibling accessibility tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what checks are performed, what results look like, or how it differs from 'run_accessibility_audit' and similar tools. The single sentence is not enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It never mentions the 'pathname' parameter, its default, or its purpose. While the parameter is self-explanatory from its name and schema, the description adds no semantics beyond the structured input, failing to connect the action to the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool 'Run deterministic accessibility checks' – a specific verb (run) and resource (accessibility checks). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling 'run_accessibility_audit' or other accessibility tools, so it lacks sibling differentiation. It is still more informative than a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_accessibility_audit' or 'test_keyboard_navigation'. There is no mention of intended context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions capturing screenshots but does not disclose any side effects, output format, whether multiple viewports are captured, or any permissions/requirements. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that starts with the action and is free of unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized, though minimally so.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the output looks like (e.g., image paths, URLs) and any relevant context (e.g., viewport sizes). The description only states the action, leaving the tool incomplete from a usability perspective.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the pathname parameter with a default and pattern, but the description provides zero parameter information. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should have compensated by explaining what pathname refers to (e.g., 'specify the pathname of the page to screenshot'), but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Capture responsive screenshots') and indicates the target ('an internal page'), making the primary action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like inspect_page or run_visual_analysis, which might also involve screenshots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about whether this should be used for responsive design checks, visual regression, or other scenarios, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Return broken image URLs') without explaining what constitutes 'broken', how the scan works, whether it relies on network requests, or any side effects. This minimal transparency is insufficient for a tool with no other metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the simplicity of the tool (one param, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It omits usage context, param explanation, and behavioral details, leaving gaps that are not filled by annotations or schema. The agent would struggle to know exactly when and how to invoke this tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'pathname' parameter at all. While the param name is somewhat inferable from the tool's purpose, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and fails to clarify the expected path format or the impact of the default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('broken image URLs'), scoped to 'an internal page'. While it's distinct from many sibling tools, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar image-related tools like analyze_images or inspect_page, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or contrast with sibling tools such as analyze_images or get_console_errors, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool returns network errors; it does not state what form the errors take, whether it requires a pathname, or how it relates to 'network failures'. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and object, earning its place without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and vague parameter semantics, this description is insufficient for an agent to understand what to expect from the call. The ambiguity with sibling tools like 'inspect_network_failures' further reduces completeness, leaving essential questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly mention the 'pathname' parameter. The phrase 'for an internal page' only weakly hints at the parameter's purpose, without explaining its default value or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('network errors') for an internal page, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'inspect_network_failures', which sounds nearly identical, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_console_errors' or 'inspect_network_failures'. The description gives no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Generate prioritized recommendations from a saved audit report,' but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects it may have (e.g., consuming or modifying the audit report), what happens if no audit report exists, or what the output format looks like. Minimal behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence: 'Generate prioritized recommendations from a saved audit report.' It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning. No unnecessary fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the generated plan contains, how it relates to the many sibling plan generators, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., which audit must have been saved). The agent lacks enough context to use the tool correctly in a workflow with dozens of alternative plan tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, taskId, with no description and zero schema coverage. The description implicitly links the parameter to the audit report ('from a saved audit report'), suggesting that taskId is the identifier of that report. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but it is not explicit and does not fully compensate for the missing parameter description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate prioritized recommendations from a saved audit report.' It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('saved audit report'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like generate_design_improvement_plan or generate_accessibility_fix_plan, which also generate plans from audits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling plan generators (design, accessibility, SEO, performance, conversion, diagnostic). The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be chosen over alternatives. This is a clear gap given the dense sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of returning data without describing any side effects, reading conventions, or error behavior. It does not add transparency beyond the obvious read-only nature implied by 'Return'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, but it is arguably too terse. It is structured adequately for a simple getter, yet it could be expanded slightly to clarify the meaning of 'protected path configuration' without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity (no params, no output schema), but the description remains ambiguous about what exactly is returned and why it matters. It does not explain what 'protected' means or when this tool is relevant, leaving an incomplete picture for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since the input schema is empty. The absence of parameters is already clear from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('protected path configuration'), but the term itself is vague and undefined. It is not clear whether this returns a list of file paths, a configuration object, or something else. It is unique among siblings, but the description does not explicitly distinguish it from potential alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explicitly states the tool does not edit protected code, indicating a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose what 'health signals' are, whether any side effects exist, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, no filler. It earns its place by stating the primary function and a key behavioral constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters. It gives no context about what 'health signals' are, what parameters do, or how to interpret results, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (taskId, pathname) have no schema descriptions and are not mentioned in the tool description. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide any semantic meaning for these optional parameters, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it inspects authentication health signals, with a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'without editing protected code' reinforces a read-only inspection role, distinguishing it from editing tools. However, 'health signals' is somewhat vague, preventing a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations, prerequisites, or point to sibling tools like inspect_analytics_health or get_protected_files. The only hint is the non-editing clause, which implies safety but not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool does not edit protected code, which is a useful safety trait. However, it doesn't mention what data is accessed, whether any side effects occur, or what the return format looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that starts with the action and resource, then adds a safety qualifier. There is no redundant wording or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
At only 10 words, the description is far too brief for a tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set. It doesn't clarify what 'payment health signals' are, how the parameters affect behavior, or what results to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of 'taskId' or 'pathname'. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific action ('Inspect') and resource ('payment health signals'), which distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools like inspect_auth_health. However, 'payment health signals' is somewhat vague and doesn't specify what these signals are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'without editing protected code' implies a safe, read-only context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_analytics_health or run_live_diagnostics. No alternatives are named and no 'when not to use' is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any safety profile (e.g., read-only vs. mutate), remote target, or potential side effects, leaving the agent without critical information about the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at four words, with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning, making it optimally scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'current task branch' refers to, the remote to push to, or any post-push behavior. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this sparse description leaves the agent with insufficient context for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline score is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters since there are none, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Push current task branch' clearly states the action (push) and the resource (task branch), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task_branch or create_commit. However, it lacks explicit differentiation context, such as mentioning the remote or the purpose of pushing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g., needing commits) or exclusions. The description provides no context about the appropriate workflow stage for pushing a task branch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Return', implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it explain the nature of 'safety' (e.g., whether it checks the current deployment state or any external service).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but overly terse. It lacks any beneficial elaboration, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description doesn't specify what the 'safety status' consists of (e.g., boolean, string, possible values) or how it relates to deployment actions. This leaves significant ambiguity for a consumer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema adds nothing. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to explain parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('rollback safety status'), clearly distinguishing it from deployment/creation tools. However, the meaning of 'safety status' is vague and not connected to what concretely it checks or returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_preview_status or check_vercel_configuration. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the lint script may modify files, what happens if lint errors are found, or whether it is a safe read-only operation. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that could potentially auto-fix issues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and its condition. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain behavior more fully. It does not clarify what happens if no lint script is configured (no-op vs. error), nor does it describe the output or side effects. The simplicity of the tool does not excuse this lack of context, especially since siblings like run_all_validation suggest a broader validation workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the schema already covers everything. There is no confusion or missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Run website lint script.' This distinguishes it from typechecking or unit tests, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_all_validation or validate_changed_files, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'when configured' provides a prerequisite condition but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_typecheck or run_unit_tests. No mention of typical workflows (e.g., run before commit) or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Return git status' without detailing what aspects of status are included (e.g., staged/unstaged changes, untracked files, branch info), or whether it has side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, though for a parameterless tool this is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, the description is still incomplete. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'git status' returns (e.g., a summary of changes, branch name, etc.), but it doesn't. This leaves the agent uncertain about the exact output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The empty schema already covers everything, and the description does not need to add parameter details. No ambiguity exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Return git status.' clearly states the verb (return) and resource (git status), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_changed_files or get_git_diff, which also deal with repository state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where checking git status is appropriate or mention that more specific tools exist for changed files or diffs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description 'Check' does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects or error conditions. The tool carries the behavioral burden entirely, and this description does not meet it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool, though it sacrifices detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and a simple description, the tool's behavior is underspecified. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what a 'check' returns or implies, such as whether configuration exists, is valid, or is ready for deployment. The current one-liner leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and with 100% schema description coverage, there are no parameters needing elaboration. The baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'Vercel preview deployment configuration.' However, 'configuration' is somewhat broad and the description does not specify whether it validates, retrieves, or tests the configuration, making it not fully distinct from neighboring tools like get_preview_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what alternatives exist, or any exclusions. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safe' but does not specify what safety checks are performed, what happens with approvedProtectedChanges, or whether the commit refuses to proceed under certain conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the action and target. There is no wasted text or unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain the safety mechanism, prerequisites, expected results, or error conditions, which are critical for a mutation tool in a multi-step git workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it does not mention either parameter. 'message' is somewhat self-explanatory, but 'approvedProtectedChanges' remains semantically opaque without explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a safe commit') and the target resource ('a task branch'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task_branch and push_task_branch. While 'safe' is vague, the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, workflow position, or when 'safe' mode matters, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a git diff is returned, without mentioning output format, whether it includes staged/unstaged changes, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It contains zero wasted words and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex configuration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool's behavior is under-specified. It does not clarify what the diff includes (e.g., working tree vs HEAD), how output is formatted, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_changed_files. Such context is necessary for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to add parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Return git diff' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying what the tool does. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_git_status or get_changed_files, though it lacks scope detail (e.g., what the diff compares).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_changed_files or get_git_status. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'return', implying a read-only action, but does not clarify what 'related brand/store resources' entails, whether the operation is expensive, or what error cases might arise. This is minimal transparency beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool, though 'related brand/store resources' could be more specific.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-param, no-output-schema tool, the description offers a high-level idea of the return content but leaves 'related brand/store resources' vague. Given the large sibling set, the agent may need more detail to confidently choose this tool over similar context retrieval tools like get_landing_page_context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description's mention of 'source and related resources' refers to output context, not input parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool returns homepage source and related brand/store resources, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_landing_page_context by focusing on 'homepage', but does not explicitly differentiate itself within the larger context of similar resource retrieval tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusionary cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get preview deployment status,' which implies a read operation but does not specify return values, error cases, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a status-checking tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, making it exemplary in conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and very minimal annotations. The description does not explain what 'status' means, the possible statuses, or the return format, leaving the agent without enough information to interpret results. This is incomplete even for a simple status tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the previewUrl parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning to the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves preview deployment status, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('preview deployment status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_preview_deployment and verify_preview_website, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_preview_website or check_vercel_configuration. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the tool's name without disclosing side effects, prerequisites, or whether files are modified. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool, though slightly terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could provide more context about the build process, such as expected runtime or what constitutes a successful build. It is adequate but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the verb 'run' and the resource 'website production build', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like run_lint or create_preview_deployment by focusing on the build step, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_all_validation or create_preview_deployment. The context is implied but not stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Run website unit/test script' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how long it may take, what output is produced, or potential side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler words, earning its place. However, the phrasing 'unit/test script' is slightly awkward and could be clearer, so it does not receive full marks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details such as what 'unit/test script' specifically refers to, expected exit behavior, or relationship to other validation tools. It meets the bare minimum but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% (empty properties). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs the website unit/test script, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_lint and run_typecheck by focusing on unit tests, though 'unit/test script' is slightly ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_all_validation or run_typecheck. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected usage context, or why one might choose this over other validation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the validation action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, how failures are reported, or how the approvedProtectedChanges parameter influences behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 10-word sentence, directly front-loaded with the verb and object. No filler or redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, yet the description omits return values, required conditions, and typical execution context. Compared to the rich sibling context, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter approvedProtectedChanges is not mentioned in the description, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The description adds zero semantic value for parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action: 'Validate changed files against permissions and secret scan.' It names the resource (changed files) and the specific validation checks (permissions and secret scan), making it distinct from siblings that fetch changes or run broader validations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_all_validation, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. Its usage is only implied by the name and action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'depth-limited' as a constraint but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the tree contains, potential permissions, or rate limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the operation. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or redundant information. This is a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is still incomplete. It does not describe the return format or what a 'project tree' entails (e.g., files, directories, representation). Without annotations or an output schema, the description should clarify these details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says 'depth-limited', which directly links to the 'depth' parameter and implies the parameter controls the limit. However, it does not explain what depth measures or how it affects the result, leaving the parameter semantics partially unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Return a depth-limited project tree' uses a specific verb 'return' and clearly identifies the resource 'project tree', with a distinct qualifier 'depth-limited'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_summary or get_git_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context about when to use this tool or alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or compare with sibling tools like get_project_summary. There is no guidance beyond the inherent meaning of the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, what underlying files or sources it accesses, or any potential side effects or performance considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's output in an efficient manner. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. However, 'homepage summary' is ambiguous, and without an output schema, the description does not clarify the return format or structure, leaving some gaps for an agent to understand exactly what will be returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter usage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately communicates the tool's scope without needing to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's output categories (framework, package manager, scripts, homepage summary) with a specific verb 'Return'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_project_structure (which would provide structure) and get_homepage_context (which focuses on homepage details), though 'homepage summary' remains somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its use for retrieving a project summary but does not state exclusions or contrast with sibling tools like audit_metadata or get_homepage_context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must explain behavior but only says 'inspect.' It does not disclose whether the tool loads the page in a browser, what side effects occur, what the return value looks like, or any access/permission requirements. This is insufficient for a diagnostic tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so complexity is low. However, the description omits behavior, output format, and usage context. It is minimally viable but lacks important context for a diagnostic tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for the 'pathname' parameter (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter or explain how to supply the page path, leaving the agent to rely on the parameter name and default. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear action ('Inspect') and a defined scope ('console, network, image and layout issues') on an 'internal page.' This distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools that focus on a single issue type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the function without indicating prerequisites, exclusions, or when a more specific diagnostic sibling should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'Run website typecheck' without disclosing side effects, return values, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal and leaves the agent with little understanding of what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence: 'Run website typecheck.' It is front-loaded and contains zero filler, making it efficient and easily scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With zero parameters and no output schema, the complexity is low and the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of output format, scope (whole project vs. changed files), or relationship to sibling validation tools, which leaves room for ambiguity in a toolset with many overlapping validation commands.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter details to document, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'run' and the resource 'website typecheck', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_lint and run_unit_tests. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from broader validation tools such as run_all_validation or validate_changed_files, leaving some scope ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use run_typecheck versus alternatives like run_all_validation, validate_changed_files, or run_production_build. The description only states the action without any contextual or exclusionary information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only lists actions without explaining consequences. 'Lock multi-agent edit scope' is vague and does not clarify whether this is reversible, requires a clean working directory, or modifies git state. Potential side effects of branch creation and screenshots are not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with action verbs. It is extremely concise and every word contributes to understanding the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the multi-agent scope locking mechanism, prerequisites, or how this tool fits with validate_multi_agent_edit and finalize_multi_agent_edit. The description leaves critical operational details unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not reference any of the four parameters. It gives no guidance on how 'instruction', 'agents', 'pathname', or 'createPreview' affect the actions. This adds no value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states three specific actions: creating a branch, capturing before screenshots, and locking multi-agent edit scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_task_branch and prepare_website_edit_task by explicitly focusing on the multi-agent edit scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used at the start of a multi-agent edit workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like prepare_website_edit_task or finalize_multi_agent_edit. No exclusion criteria 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only names the action. It does not mention whether the restore overwrites current working-tree changes, whether a stash or restore point is required, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to committed changes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single seven-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant wording. Every word earns its place, and the sentence directly communicates the tool's core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-sentence description is too thin. It lacks behavioral details, prerequisites, and workflow context that an agent needs to invoke the tool safely, especially in a git-centric toolset where restore operations can have destructive side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the schema already fully documents that no arguments are needed. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required, so the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action (restore), the resource (working-tree changes), and the scope (on a task branch), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling git tools such as get_changed_files and create_commit, which are the only other tools with similar subject matter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'on a task branch' implies a context, but it does not explain what conditions should hold before calling restore_task_changes or what other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'run' tests but does not disclose what happens during execution (e.g., whether it launches a browser, how long it takes, whether it modifies any state, or what the output/return value looks like). This is minimal for a test-running tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 5 words, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word is relevant and there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete by explaining what 'configured' means, whether the tests run against a live server or build, and how results are reported. However, for a simple tool with no inputs, the minimal description is acceptable but leaves room for clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add beyond the empty schema; the description appropriately does not invent parameters. No further elaboration is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('run') with a specific resource ('configured homepage Playwright tests'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling test runners like run_unit_tests or run_lint. The mention of 'homepage' and 'Playwright' removes ambiguity about what kind of tests are executed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or provide context like 'use this for browser-level homepage tests instead of run_unit_tests.' Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'configured tests'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'when configured' as a condition but does not disclose side effects (e.g., triggering a build, potential cost), authentication requirements, return behavior, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence: 'Create a Vercel preview deployment when configured.' It is front-loaded with the action and contains no wasteful words. All eight words earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It is too minimal: it does not explain what happens after creation, how to check status (e.g., via get_preview_status), or what 'configured' entails. Given the side-effects of creation, more context is essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Create a Vercel preview deployment.' This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like request_production_deployment or get_preview_status. The phrase 'when configured' adds a condition but does not obscure the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used for creating a preview deployment, and 'when configured' hints at a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions. The name alone differentiates from production deployment, but explicit guidance is lacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is run but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., build producing artifacts), failure behavior, or whether the checks are sequential. This is a minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and lists the components clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete for an aggregate validation runner. However, it could mention the order of execution or that it is a combined alternative to running each check separately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Run') and a specific set of resources ('lint, typecheck, tests and build'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that run individual checks by indicating an aggregate operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a full validation suite is desired, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over running individual tools (e.g., run_lint, run_unit_tests) or alternatives like validate_changed_files. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rootellectmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rootellect/rootellectmcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rootellect/rootellectmcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rootellectmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rootellect/rootellectmcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rootellect/rootellectmcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rootellect/rootellectmcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server