Brainiall Web

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the tool verifies responsiveness, without detailing what 'responding' means, network behavior, or possible error states.

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, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without elaboration. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 parameterless liveness check, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the condition being tested. The lack of an output schema and absence of return-value details are minor given the simplicity of a status check.

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 parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The schema documents no inputs, and the description's behavior does not require any parameter explanation.

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 states a clear verb ('check') and a specific resource ('the web reading service'), with the outcome condition 'is responding'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_page and crawl_site by indicating a liveness/health check rather than a data-gathering operation.

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 phrase 'whether the web reading service is responding' implies this is a health-check tool, so the intended usage is reasonably clear. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling operations, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: strict page/depth limits and the cost/slowness tradeoff. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with no fluff: the core action and limits come first, followed by targeted usage guidance. Every sentence 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 three-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It does not describe the exact return format, but no output schema exists and it clearly says it reads pages, so an agent can infer the outcome.

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 schema already documents url, max_depth, and max_pages. The description only refers to 'page and depth limits' without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Read multiple linked pages') and explicitly differentiates from map_site, which discovers site structure. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like read_page and map_site without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use only when several pages are required') and names map_site as the preferred alternative for structure discovery, with a rationale (slower and costlier). This is model usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds valuable context by labeling the operation as 'inexpensive' and framing it as a discovery step, which helps agents anticipate performance and purpose. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits or response format specifics, though annotations cover the main safety profile.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence immediately states the operation and purpose, and the second delivers the workflow guidance. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information (purpose and usage) is front-loaded.

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 2-parameter tool with clear annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it (before crawl_site, before read_page), and why it's preferable (inexpensive). The implied output (a list of URLs) is sufficient for this simple discovery tool, and the workflow guidance makes it self-contained.

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%, with both 'url' and 'limit' clearly described in the schema (absolute URL, max 500 cap). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 action ('List a site's URLs') with a specific resource and purpose ('so an agent can select pages before reading them'). It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming crawl_site as the heavier alternative and read_page for after mapping, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer this inexpensive discovery step before crawl_site. Map first, then call read_page for selected URLs unless content from many pages is required.' This states the recommended workflow and explicitly contrasts with crawl_site (for many pages) and read_page (for selected URLs), leaving no ambiguity about decision-making.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the output is clean Markdown with raw HTML noise removed and clarifying that the tool reads exactly one known page.

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 sentences, no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives a clear usage boundary. 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 single-parameter, read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to select and invoke it. It states the input, the expected output format, and the primary alternative for unfamiliar URLs.

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% and the single url parameter is already well documented with type, minimum length, and intended URL scheme. The description adds no new parameter-specific syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one known web page as clean Markdown.' It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing a single known URL rather than crawling or searching, and by naming the output format (Markdown).

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 when to use the tool — for documentation, articles, and product pages when the URL is already known — and when not to: for unfamiliar sites, use map_site first instead of crawling every page. This gives concrete routing guidance relative to siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat safety properties. It adds a useful scoping detail about not requiring known URLs, but it does not disclose result format, pagination, or cap behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose and primary use condition with zero filler. Every word contributes to an agent's ability to decide whether to call this tool.

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 two-parameter search tool with rich annotations, the description plus schema is sufficient for selection and invocation. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the schema hints at result fields (title, URL, snippet) and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 the schema fully documents both query and max_results. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('find') and resource ('relevant web pages'), and adds the key condition 'when you do not already know their URLs,' which clearly separates it from URL-based siblings like read_page and crawl_site. This is a precise, unambiguous definition.

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 condition 'when you do not already know their URLs' gives clear guidance on when to use search instead of direct navigation/reading tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route correctly among the listed siblings.

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