osint_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses automatic type detection, SHA256 hash verification, and summarize behavior. However, it omits important behavioral details: potential destructive actions (e.g., overwriting files via output_path), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on error (e.g., broken links). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with an opening line, bullet points for automatic handling, summary/archive instructions, and file format details. Every sentence adds value. It is slightly verbose in the archival section (three lines for web pages vs one for PDFs/binaries) but overall concise and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, multiple input types), the description covers the main workflows: URL fetching, resource ID retrieval, summarization, and archival. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., raw JSON structure), error handling for invalid targets, and performance considerations for large files. It is complete for basic use but leaves gaps for edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that 'target' can be a URL or resource_id, how 'summarize' with a question affects output, and what files 'output_path' saves for different types. This context helps the agent understand parameter usage better than the schema alone.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Fetch data from a resource ID or URL.' It then explains two distinct modes (URLs and resource IDs) with specific handling for each. This differentiates it from siblings like osint_search and osint_list_sources, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for URLs (web, PDF, binaries) and for resource IDs from osint_search. It offers practical guidance on using 'summarize' and 'output_path' parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or name alternative tools for scenarios like simple previews (osint_preview).

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