Open URL And Extract Images

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

The description discloses that the tool opens a URL in a local Chrome session and extracts visible image candidates, adding context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It explains the scheme restriction, but does not detail browser state changes or extraction mechanics.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key constraint. However, it omits parameter details, which could be structured as a short list. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what 'extract visible image candidates' returns (e.g., image URLs, data). It also fails to describe the return format or any pagination behavior. Combined with missing parameter explanations, the tool is inadequately specified for reliable agent invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'url' parameter but does not explain the 'limit' parameter, its purpose, or how it controls extraction. This leaves the agent guessing about a critical parameter.

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 action (open URL and extract images), the resource (connected local Chrome session), and the output (visible image candidates). It also explicitly rejects non-http/https schemes, distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific sites.

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 specifies that only http/https URLs are accepted and lists rejected schemes, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this generic tool versus specialized siblings like open_google_maps_visual_search. The usage context is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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