analyze_trust_signals

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.