webclaw

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively discloses two key behaviors: (1) it uses an LLM (not just extraction), and (2) it 'automatically falls back to the webclaw cloud API when bot protection is detected' - crucial resilience behavior. Missing: output format, error handling on failure, or rate limit warnings.

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, both essential. First sentence front-loads the core purpose (LLM summarization). Second sentence provides critical operational detail (fallback mechanism). Zero waste, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers core function and resilience behavior. Minor gap: no mention of return value format (string vs object) or what happens if the URL is unreachable even after fallback.

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 has 100% description coverage ('URL to fetch and summarize', 'Number of sentences...'), establishing a baseline of 3. Description reinforces the 'web page' concept aligning with the url parameter, but adds no syntax details, format constraints, or semantic clarification beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Summarize[s] the content of a web page using an LLM' - providing specific verb (summarize), resource (web page content), and method (LLM). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'scrape' (raw extraction), 'extract' (structured data), and 'crawl' (multi-page), which don't imply LLM-based condensation.

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?

Description implies usage by mentioning LLM-based summarization, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like 'scrape' or 'extract'. The fallback behavior hints at resilience but doesn't state prerequisites or exclusions.

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