SnapForge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for an API key and the ability to accept URL or raw HTML, but does not detail limitations such as max HTML size (though schema states 2MB), rate limits, or error handling. The mention of 'article extraction' hints at content simplification but lacks full clarity.

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 two sentences long, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second provides use case and requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and a key requirement (API key) but does not cover all parameters or output format details. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but leaves 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 coverage is 50% with descriptions only for 'url' and 'html'. The description adds context for these parameters by mentioning public URL or raw HTML, but does not explain 'delay' or 'waitUntil', leaving them to the schema which lacks descriptions for those. Some value is added but incompletely.

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 tool extracts a clean Markdown version from a public URL or raw HTML, mentioning article extraction and HTML→Markdown conversion. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools snapforge_pdf and snapforge_screenshot by specifying 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?

The description implies usage for feeding page content to an LLM and mentions the requirement for a SnapForge API key, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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 must carry the full burden. It discloses that the output is an embedded resource and requires an API key. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or specifics about the return format, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant or vague statements.

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?

Given the complexity of 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, usage examples, or parameter interactions, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, and the main description adds little beyond what the schema provides. It mentions 'public URL or raw HTML' but does not explain other parameters like delay, margin, landscape, or pageFormat. The description inadequately compensates for the low 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: rendering a public URL or raw HTML to a PDF returned as an embedded resource. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling tool snapforge_screenshot.

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 mentions the requirement for a SnapForge API key, providing a prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, but the sibling name implies usage for PDF vs. screenshot.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions API key requirement and raw HTML size limit, but omits critical details like rate limits, error behavior, timeouts, and parameter effects.

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 short and to the point, but it could be more structured with parameter hints or usage notes. It is not overly verbose but misses opportunities to concisely explain key aspects.

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?

Given the high parameter count (10), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover return format, error handling, or parameter relationships, leaving the agent with significant 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 only 20%, and the description adds minimal parameter context (max 2MB for html). Most parameters (delay, scale, width, height, quality, fullPage, waitUntil) lack explanation, offering little value beyond the schema.

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 tool captures a screenshot of a public URL or raw HTML as PNG/JPEG, distinguishing it from the sibling snapforge_pdf, which likely generates PDFs.

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 specifies the input types (URL or raw HTML) and a requirement (API key), implying when to use, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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