analyze_scripts

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.