extract

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

The description reveals a two-step process (scrape to Markdown then extract JSON) and the requirement of a supplied bounded JSON Schema. It implies public URLs are needed, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or behavior on schema mismatch.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey the core functionality. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with a complex operation (scraping and schema validation), the description is moderately complete. It explains the input (URL) and output (schema-conforming JSON) but lacks details on error handling, response format, and contrasts with sibling tools like 'web_scrape'. No output schema amplifies the gap.

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 sole parameter 'extractOption' is an object with only a minimal description 'Extraction options' in the schema. The tool description does not elaborate on its structure or contents, leaving the agent to guess what properties are required.

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 extracts JSON conforming to a schema from a URL, specifying the action, resource, and output. It distinguishes from simple scrapers like 'web_scrape' by mentioning schema-based extraction, but could be more explicit about the supported schema format.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'web_scrape' or other data retrieval tools. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., public URLs only), limitations, or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.

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