new_page_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's 'Returns' is consistent with it. Beyond that, it discloses the exact returned shape and the non-obvious behavioral fact that width_section is the canvas width all element coordinates are measured in — real context an agent needs before placing elements.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the most important fact (what is returned) is front-loaded. The return-shape enumeration is compact rather than sprawling, though it slightly crowds the more decision-relevant width/coordinate sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned keys (page, popup, settings, options, cartConfigs). Combined with the read-only annotations and the coordinate-system explanation, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by linking desktopWidth/mobileWidth to settings.width_section and explaining the consequence: this width is the coordinate basis for every element. It omits mobileOnly, but that parameter is already documented in 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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns an empty, complete top-level page source in the Webcake editor's shape, with the exact top-level keys enumerated. This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_page, though it never names create_page or explains which sibling to prefer for bootstrapping a real page.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'empty, complete top-level page source' suggests scaffolding a new page before adding elements, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g. create_page). An agent can infer intent but receives no routing guidance.

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