tactual-mcp

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's read-only ('Read-only — navigates to each URL but does not modify pages'), handles errors gracefully, uses a single browser session, and provides output details (~200 bytes per page plus summary). However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits or authentication requirements beyond the storageState parameter.

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 well-structured and concise, with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's purpose and method, providing usage guidelines, and detailing behavioral aspects. There's no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a good job of covering essential context: purpose, usage, behavior, and output characteristics. However, it could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the relationship with the 'save_auth' sibling tool for authentication, though this is hinted at in the schema. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally detail return values more, but it provides enough for basic understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about the tool's overall operation (e.g., 'Runs analyze_url on each URL in a single browser session'), which helps understand how parameters like 'urls' are used. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 purpose: 'Analyze multiple pages and produce an aggregated site-level report.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('multiple pages'), and output ('site-level report'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'analyze_url' by noting it runs analyze_url on each URL in a single session and combines results.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this instead of calling analyze_url repeatedly when you need a site-level assessment.' It also mentions an alternative ('analyze_url') and includes context about error handling ('If a single URL fails... remaining URLs still complete'), which helps inform usage decisions.

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