web-change-monitor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary method (HEAD) and fallback (GET+SHA-256 of first 32 KB), which is transparent about behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or limitations for non-public URLs beyond the schema note.

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?

Two concise sentences pack the outputs, method, fallback, usage pattern, and use cases. Front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value. No filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description provides complete context: what it returns, how it works, how to use it, and example use cases. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'url' described. The description adds the 'publicly accessible' constraint and mentions HTTPS/HTTP, but this is minimal value beyond the schema. 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 it returns content-change signals (ETag, Last-Modified, Content-Length, Content-Type) via HTTP HEAD, with a fallback to GET+SHA-256. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like http-headers or page-intel by focusing specifically on change detection for monitoring.

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?

Provides clear guidance on usage: store snapshot and re-call periodically. Gives concrete use cases (competitor pricing, news, regulatory filings). However, does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like http-headers for simple header retrieval.

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