silkworm_fetch

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. It mentions optional caching, but does not detail side effects, error handling, authentication requirements, or the nature of the stored HTML. This is insufficient for a network-fetching tool with potential storage implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the primary action and a key optional behavior without redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the tool has 12 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions. The one-sentence description is far too sparse to make the tool safely and correctly invokable for non-trivial HTTP requests.

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%, and the description fails to compensate. It only alludes to caching (possibly linking to the store_document parameter) but does not explain the remaining 11 parameters such as method, headers, body, emulation, or timeout settings.

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 tool fetches a page via silkworm's HttpClient and optionally caches HTML. This distinguishes it from silkworm_fetch_cdp and other sibling tools, giving the agent a clear understanding of the core function.

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 phrase 'through silkworm's HttpClient' implies a lightweight HTTP fetch rather than a CDP-driven browser session, and 'for later selector work' hints at a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the CDP variant or exclude JavaScript-heavy pages.

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