scrapewright

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only status operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, whether it consumes credits, or any rate-limit implications. The output schema covers return shape, but behavioral traits are otherwise minimal.

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. Every word contributes to conveying what the tool does.

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, read-only status tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete. It tells the agent what to expect and which key applies. Adding an explicit 'safe to call' note would make it fully complete, but the gap is small.

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 there is little to explain beyond the empty schema. Mentioning 'the key in use' clarifies that no explicit key parameter is required, which is a small but useful semantic addition.

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 resource (the API key/account) and what it reports: credits left and monthly usage. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the siblings are all crawl/detect/extract operations, so the domain distinction is clear.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to check remaining credits or usage for the active key. There is no explicit 'when to use this vs alternatives' guidance, though no sibling is a natural alternative.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the wait time (up to four minutes) and the async behavior (returns a job_id for longer crawls). It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error handling, but the key operational behavior is covered. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and then add the timeout/job_id detail. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has five parameters with zero schema description coverage. The description only touches listing_url and omits js, fields, scroll, and max_items, which are likely critical for correct invocation. The asynchronous fallback is mentioned, but the parameter gap makes the description incomplete 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only references the 'listing URL' implicitly. It fails to explain the other four parameters (js, fields, scroll, max_items), leaving the agent to guess their meanings or defaults. The description adds no value for these parameters.

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 ('Walk a site from one listing URL and extract every item'), identifying the resource (site) and the starting point (listing URL). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like extract_page (single page vs. whole site) and crawl_status (status checking), so an agent can distinguish 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?

It provides a clear usage condition: 'Waits up to four minutes; a longer crawl returns a job_id to pass to crawl_status.' This tells the agent when to switch to crawl_status. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., 'use extract_page for a single page'), but the context is strong enough for routing.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal one meaningful trait — the asynchronous model where crawls continue after the initiating call returns — but it omits what the tool returns, whether it is a read-only status poll, whether it blocks or errors on unfinished jobs, and any polling semantics. This is a thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence of eight words with the main verb and object front-loaded; every word earns its place. The only knock is that 'outlived its call' is a clever, slightly indirect phrasing that trades directness for style.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is covered externally. For a single-parameter tool the definition is nearly adequate, but the provenance of job_id is left to inference, the status semantics are unexplained, and there is no annotation safety profile. It is minimally sufficient but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare job_id schema, and it adds only marginal meaning: it implies job_id identifies the asynchronous crawl from a prior call. It does not say where to obtain job_id (presumably from crawl_site's response) or describe any format expectations, so the compensation is insufficient for 0% 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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a crawl'), and the phrase 'outlived its call' clarifies this targets a crawl job still running after the initiating call returned. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (crawl_site initiates, extract_page/detect_site do other work). However, it never explicitly says it returns status/progress/results, leaving that to be inferred from the tool name.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'a crawl that outlived its call' suggests the agent should use this after initiating a crawl and wanting to check on it later. No explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer the relationship to crawl_site.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only 'Cheap' as a cost/performance hint and implies a read-only report, but does not describe side effects, network behavior, output handling, or failure modes. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a genuinely useful operational hint about cost and timing. 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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the core is simple, and the purpose plus usage hint may be enough to attempt a first call. However, with no annotations, the description still omits input semantics and any behavioral details, leaving the agent with only a skeletal understanding.

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 0%, and the description never mentions the url parameter, its expected format, or any constraints. The only hints are the tool name and the word 'site', which do not add meaning beyond the schema's minimal field title. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action ('Report') and resource ('what platform a site runs on and which strategy to use'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like crawl_site, crawl_status, and extract_page. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the purpose is not vague.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: 'call it before a large job', and adds the cost dimension with 'Cheap'. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the narrow purpose and clear trigger make the guidance actionable.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the first call on a new site compiles a recipe and costs 300 credits, while later calls replay it for 1 credit per row. It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but for a read-style extraction tool the credit/caching model is the key extra context.

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, front-loaded with the essential scope ('ONE page') and then the optional fields behavior. The examples are compact and every clause adds value; no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to document return values. It covers the key operational details: single-page scope, custom vs default schema, and the credit/recipe lifecycle. Its main completeness gap is that it does not explain how this tool relates to crawl_site/detect_site, but that is minor given the clear 'ONE page' scope.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does a good job on `fields`, giving concrete schema examples and explaining the null/default behavior. However, `js` is left unexplained and `url` is only implicit; the description partially compensates but does not cover all three parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Extract structured data') and scopes it to 'ONE page', immediately distinguishing it from site-wide siblings like crawl_site. It also explains the core customization of the tool (fields schema), so an agent can tell what the tool is for without opening the 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 'ONE page' phrasing implies this is the single-page counterpart to crawl_site, and the fields instructions give practical how-to-use guidance. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use the tool (e.g. 'use crawl_site for multiple pages'), leaving selection largely to inference.

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