browser_lighthouse_audit

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully compensates: it discloses isolated headless Chrome instance, no session interference, shutdown after audit, error messages (Audit failed, Lighthouse launch failed), and parameter behavior like throttling only recommended for mobile. This is comprehensive for behavioral transparency.

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: English summary first, then Chinese details breaking into purpose, when-to-use, output format, parameters, errors, and example. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, front-loaded with key info.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: function, usage, output structure (scores, metrics, diagnostics, reportPath), parameter details, error handling, and example. Nothing missing.

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%, but description adds meaning beyond schema: it clarifies throttling only useful for mobile, provides example JSON, explains categories as array of specific enum values, and defaults. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 that the tool runs a Google Lighthouse audit, returning specific scores and diagnostic advice. It uses a specific verb 'Run' and identifies the resource 'Lighthouse audit', distinguishing it from other browser tools that may focus on other aspects.

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 includes explicit when-to-use scenarios (pre-release quality evaluation, multi-dimension scoring, regression monitoring) in both English and Chinese. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with sibling tools like browser_a11y_check, but the context implies it is for comprehensive audit.

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