sb_review

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true covers safety, so the description does not need to reiterate that. However, the description does not state what the tool actually returns or what side effects (if any) it has beyond reading. It lists areas of focus (visitor experience, conversion blockers) but remains vague about the behavioral outcome, such as whether it produces a report, a score, or just passes/fails. No contradiction, but limited added context beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences and relatively compact. It front-loads the core concept ('What a VISITOR would meet') and adds a usage instruction. However, the jargon ('blank band, placeholder, dead binding') may confuse without context, but it is still concise overall.

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?

With no output schema and only this description, the tool's behavior and return value are not fully specified. The description lists what the tool considers (page elements and conversion blockers) but does not explain what the agent will receive after calling it (e.g., a list of issues, a success/failure flag, or a report). For a review tool that is meant to be used before finishing a page, the expected output is critical. This is a significant gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain any. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity. It correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 implies a review/audit of a page from a visitor's perspective, mentioning specific elements like 'blank band, placeholder, dead binding' and conversion blockers. However, it does not state a clear verb+resource (e.g., 'reviews the page for issues') and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like sb_outline or sb_look, which might also inspect pages. The purpose is inferable but not explicit.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Run it before calling a page finished,' which is a clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the timing guidance is specific and actionable. It implies this is a pre-publication check, which is useful.

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