run_lighthouse_audit

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.