Clone Website

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the target is a 'public website' and that use should be legitimate, but it does not disclose that the tool actively downloads assets, generates numerous network requests, or may strain the target server. It also does not mention rate limits, robots.txt considerations, or the fact that the tool may produce a large local artifact bundle.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a concise list of deliverable types. The second sentence adds an important usage restriction without fluff. Every word contributes to defining the tool's scope and boundary.

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?

The tool is complex with 20 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level summary of outputs. It does not state what the return format is (e.g., paths to saved files, an index, a summary) or mention side-effect behaviors such as asset downloading and network load. Because the schema covers parameters well, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an operation of this scale.

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?

All 20 parameters have individual descriptions in the schema with defaults and ranges, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides complete guidance. This meets the baseline for high coverage and does not need further compensation.

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 opens with a specific action 'Generate a clone-ready evidence bundle for a public website' and enumerates concrete artifact categories (screenshots, design tokens, assets, page topology, behaviors, component specs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_url or capture_page, which focus on simpler retrieval. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 a clear acceptable-use boundary: 'Use only for legitimate site migration, learning, or authorized rebuilds.' This gives a when-to-use context but does not compare against any sibling tools or mention when a simpler alternative (e.g., capture_page) would be more appropriate. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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