inspect_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only inspection of a public page but does not clarify what 'aggregate visual/UI patterns' means, whether any network/fetch limits apply, or how errors are handled. The presence of an output schema mitigates but does not fully compensate for the lack of behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without redundancy or filler. Every word 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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. The vague phrase 'aggregate visual/UI patterns' and the lack of usage alternatives prevent a perfect score, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 for the url parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add the semantic constraint that the page must be 'public,' which goes beyond the parameter name. However, it does not specify URL format or validation rules, leaving some gap.

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 verb 'inspect' with a specific resource ('one public page') and the intended outputs ('metadata and aggregate visual/UI patterns'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like research_niche and review_implementation, which suggest different purposes.

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 inspecting a single public page but provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The scoping constraint 'one public page' gives some context, but no comparative guidance is offered.

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