extract_structured_data_cdp

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions CDP and DOM extraction, but omits significant behaviors such as the store_document parameter (which defaults to true and could persist the document), possible side effects, timeout behavior, or error conditions. The description is too thin to make the tool's side effects and operational details transparent.

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 exactly one sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose (fetch and extract) and uses precise terminology (CDP, rendered page, structured records). Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary context.

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 high complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown in the input), a one-line description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain how the fields array works, what item selectors do, how store_document affects state, or what the structured output looks like. This leaves a knowledgeable agent without the context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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% for the 13 parameters, yet the description provides no insight into any of them. It does not mention url, fields, item_selector, item_xpath, store_document, or any of the many configuration options. The agent must rely solely on raw schema types, which is insufficient for a tool this complex.

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 'Fetch a rendered page through CDP and extract structured records from the rendered DOM' clearly identifies the core purpose: use CDP to fetch a rendered page and extract structured records. It uses specific verbs and a specific resource, which distinguishes it from other tools that just fetch or query selectors. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like silkworm_fetch_cdp or query_selector_cdp, so it lacks strong sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for rendered pages, but does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., a running CDP endpoint), when not to use it, or which sibling tools are more appropriate for simpler fetches or queries. This leaves the selection criteria unclear.

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