validation_quick_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions low token usage, specific checks, and outputs. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose, scope, and outputs. Every part carries weight, with no redundant information.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and basic outputs, but lacks parameter details and output format (e.g., structure of errors, artifact path). Without output schema, more detail on return values would be beneficial. Overall adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. The parameter names (url, timeout, headless) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or context, such as units or behavior.

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 performs low-token quick validation on a single page, listing specific checks (Console, Network, PageError, DOM/ARIA/text summary, stable selector reachability) and outputs (pass/fail, top errors, artifact path). This differentiates it from sibling tools like validation_run or validation_start which are likely more comprehensive.

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 usage for quick, low-resource validation on single pages but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validation_run or validation_start. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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