capture_url

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the SSRF guard detail and the notion of 'readable content', which are useful behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict any 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action, safety constraint, output, and return value.

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 tool has no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the main behavior, the SSRF guard, the output, and the note-creating side effect. It does not explain the project parameter behavior, but the schema fully covers that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description is not required to elaborate on parameters. The description adds the return value ('Returns the new note's id') which is valuable but not parameter-specific. It meets the baseline for fully documented 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a web page') and states the outcome ('save its readable content as a note'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like notes_create. It also mentions returning the note's id, which is a unique functional signature.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool: whenever you need to fetch a URL and capture its content as a note. It gives clear context (SSRF guard, saving as a note) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for a 5.

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