webclaw

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 and successfully reveals the automatic fallback to 'webclaw cloud API when bot protection is detected.' However, it omits other critical behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or what error conditions might occur beyond bot protection.

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 consists of exactly two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality, while the second provides relevant operational context regarding the fallback mechanism, maintaining tight focus throughout.

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's moderate complexity (comparison logic with fallback) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the input requirements and operational model. However, it would benefit from explicitly stating the prerequisite relationship to the 'extract' sibling and describing the expected diff output format.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('url' and 'previous_snapshot'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description references these parameters in context ('current content of a URL,' 'previous extraction snapshot') but does not add additional semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, such as validation rules or the expected format of the ExtractionResult.

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 ('Compare') and clearly identifies both resources involved ('current content of a URL' vs 'previous extraction snapshot'), along with the output ('showing what changed'). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like 'extract' or 'scrape' by specifying the comparison paradigm.

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 mention of 'previous extraction snapshot' implicitly signals that this tool should be used after an extraction has been performed, providing context for the prerequisite workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like 'crawl' or 'scrape' for monitoring changes, or what conditions make the fallback behavior trigger.

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