inspect_page

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.