verify_preview_website

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'returns a healthy response' without explaining what 'healthy' means, how the check is performed, or what the output includes. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.

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, short sentence, which is appropriately concise, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of essential details; a minimal viable description should still convey key behavioral and usage information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected behavior. The phrase 'healthy response' is vague and could refer to HTTP status, content, or performance, and no return value is described.

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 defines previewUrl as a required URI string, but the description adds no extra meaning. It does not clarify what URL formats or access requirements are expected, and with 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 (verify) and the resource (preview URL), with a specific outcome (returns a healthy response). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_preview_status and run_live_diagnostics, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from them.

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 instead of related checks like get_preview_status or run_live_diagnostics. The description does not specify necessary prerequisites, such as whether a deployment must exist or the URL must be publicly accessible.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.