run_checks_on_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks the current state after interactions, implying non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose other potential behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the session, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the session is inactive. This is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately provide differentiation from a sibling tool. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no wasted words.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality and distinguishes from a key sibling. However, it lacks details about return values (what the output contains) and does not specify that the session must be active, which is implied but could be explicit. Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, meaning the schema already fully documents both parameters (session_id and checks). The description lists the check types ('visual/accessibility/functionality/seo/performance') which mirrors the enum in the schema, adding no new semantic value. Therefore, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 runs multiple types of checks (visual, accessibility, functionality, seo, performance) on an active session page. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'test_url' by noting it checks the current state after interactions rather than opening a new page. The verb 'run' and resource 'checks on an active session page' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly compares this tool to 'test_url', stating when to use it (for checking current state after interactions) and when not to (to open a new page). However, it does not provide broader usage guidelines such as prerequisites (e.g., session must be active) or when to prefer other sibling tools like 'run_lighthouse' or 'compare_screenshots' for specific subsets of checks.

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