fetch_web_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares the operation is read-only, that the payload is fetched but never executed, that content and content-type come back, and that only http(s) is accepted. It omits operational behavior an agent would want — what happens when max_bytes is exceeded (silent truncation vs error), redirect following, auth for private resources, and timeouts — which keeps it below 5.

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, front-loaded with the operation and its purpose, then the return shape, then the scheme constraint. No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 detail is unnecessary. For a two-parameter read-only fetch tool the description covers operation, safety, and target restrictions adequately; only the max_bytes/truncation and error-path semantics remain unstated.

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. It adds real meaning for url (http(s) only, text/script/wasm asset types), but max_bytes is never mentioned at all — an agent cannot tell whether exceeding it truncates silently or errors, despite it having a 4 MiB default. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 (read-only GET), a specific resource (remote text/script/wasm asset), and the reason it exists (so it can be analyzed, e.g. bundle.js). That framing cleanly separates it from the sibling analysis tools (radare2, ghidra_decompile, disassemble, etc.), which operate on already-obtained artifacts.

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 clear: reach for this when you need to pull a remote asset down for subsequent analysis, and it is restricted to http(s) targets. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. do not use for local files, or for binary/opaque content), so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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