extract_content_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'clean' content but lacks details on what cleaning entails, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or output format. The description is too brief for a tool with no 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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?

The tool has low complexity (1 parameter) and an output schema (not shown), but the description still misses behavioral details like return structure or error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only parameter 'urls' is an array of strings. The description adds that it accepts 'one or more URLs', but does not explain URL format, maximum number, or any restrictions. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more parameter guidance.

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 verb 'extract', the resource 'content from URLs', and the purpose 'clean, LLM-readable'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'web_search_tool' by focusing on content extraction from given URLs rather than searching.

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 provides context for when to use the tool ('reading articles, documentation, or any web page content') and implies its utility for LLM analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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