new_page_skeleton

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a tool that only manufactures an in-memory skeleton — no contradiction. Beyond the annotation, the description discloses the exact return payload `{ sections: [] }`, which is genuinely additive since no output schema exists, and it signals the object is inert until build_page persists it.

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 short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the return value and followed immediately by the forward workflow. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema helper, the description supplies both the return shape and the sequencing into new_section/build_page, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing material is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 ('Return an empty but valid page source') and even gives the exact payload shape `{ sections: [] }`, so there is no ambiguity about what comes back. It also names the sibling tools that consume or extend its output (new_section, build_page), distinguishing it from those siblings without the agent opening a schema.

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 spells out the three-step workflow: get the skeleton, add sections with new_section, then save with build_page. That is clear usage context and explicitly routes to the alternatives. It stops short of a 'when not to use this' statement (e.g., when starting from an existing page source via get_page_source), so it is not a 5.

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