lighthouse_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Runs' and lists categories; it does not mention network fetching, read-only behavior, potential latency, or that it produces a report. This is thin for an audit tool.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and readable, though it omits useful behavioral and parameter context.

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?

With 4 parameters including a nested throttling object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the audit returns, whether all categories are audited by default, or how throttling affects execution.

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 only 50%: url and formFactor have descriptions, while categories and throttling do not. The description repeats category names, which helps slightly, but it says nothing about throttling or how categories are applied or defaulted, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Runs') and names the exact resource ('Lighthouse audit') plus the five categories it covers. This makes the tool's role clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from nearby audit tools like psi_analyze or a11y_audit.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. The category list implies broad Lighthouse needs, but with many sibling audit tools, an agent is left to infer which tool is appropriate.

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