Show report on a page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: the page automatically shows every changed file with per-line diffs, and the return contract is 'Returns a single line with the page URL - reply with that line only.' This is valuable beyond the schema, though it omits error cases or prerequisites.

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 dense paragraph with no filler. It follows a logical flow: purpose, when to call, what to include, expected output, and every sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 purpose, timing, parameter guidance, and output format, which is solid given no output schema. It could better address how this relates to sibling tools like view_plan and view_diagram, but it is adequate for a 5-parameter tool.

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 is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds usage hints like summary max 3 sentences and refs using anchors, but these mostly echo the schema descriptions rather than introduce new parameter meaning.

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 it shows what you did on a local web page instead of chat, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting the page includes per-line diffs, which is a unique capability versus chat output.

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 says 'Call this AFTER you have finished the work,' giving a clear timing guideline. It also instructs not to describe edits in chat but to point at the page, but it does not directly contrast with sibling tools like view_plan or view_diagram.

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