correlate_triple_check

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

The description explains it extracts DOM data, calls an API, and compares them, detecting several issue types. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what permissions it requires, or any side effects on browser state. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and is moderately transparent.

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 very concise—two sentences clearly stating the purpose, modes, and detection capabilities. It is front-loaded with the key action and adds no unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain return values. It mentions detection capabilities but does not describe the output format (e.g., does it return a diff report?). For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, more detail on results would improve completeness.

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 each parameter having a description. The tool description is a high-level summary that does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to because the schema already provides adequate detail. Baseline score 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 that the tool compares DOM data with API data to detect inconsistencies, omissions, and format differences. It mentions two modes (list and detail). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browser_data_compare' or 'trace_correlation_check', which may have overlapping functionality.

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 implies this tool is used when you need to verify UI-API consistency, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions that would make it inappropriate. The mention of 'list' and 'detail' modes gives some context but lacks exclusions.

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