scrape_web_page

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it blocks non-public addresses, returns different content with/without selector, and specifies exact return components (title, text, links). However, it does not mention error handling, rate limiting, or behavior for invalid selectors, which are minor gaps.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding essential information: core function, selector behavior, security constraint, and return details. No redundancy or fluff.

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 has an output schema (so return format is covered), the description explains core behavior, selector usage, and security. However, it omits explanation of `max_links` and edge cases like non-matching selectors, leaving slight gaps for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `url` (the page to fetch) and `selector` (CSS selector for targeted extraction), but does not explain `max_links` (default 50) – likely limiting outgoing links, but not stated. Partial compensation, one parameter unclear.

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 public web page and extracts content, distinguishing behavior with or without a CSS selector. It also clarifies it blocks non-public addresses, making the purpose unambiguous and different from siblings like http_request or read_file.

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 implies usage for public web pages and mentions blocking of private addresses, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., http_request for raw content) or state when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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