detect_broken_images

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.