pixasso_fetch_reference

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true), the description adds real behavioral value: it detects client-rendered SPAs and explicitly 'flags unrendered content rather than hallucinating,' which tells the agent how to interpret sparse results. It stops short of covering rate limits, auth, redirect behavior, or non-idempotency implications despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output set, then the SPA behavior, then the limitation. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the name or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing return contents and the SPA/CSS limitations, which is sufficient to call it safely. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'focus' parameter, whose behavioral impact is never addressed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the 'focus' enum (full/layout/typography/color/motion) and how each value changes what is returned or which extractions are skipped, and the schema's own label ('Analytical focus area.') is too terse to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch and deconstruct a live reference website server-side') and then enumerates exactly what is extracted (title, meta description, h1-h4, links, readable text). The 'server-side' framing and SPA detection distinguish it from the search/discovery siblings like pixasso_search_references.

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?

Provides a clear when-not with an alternative ('Does not extract computed CSS... use headless browser tools or user screenshots for visual styling'), which steers the agent away from a likely misuse. However, it never states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as pixasso_search_references or pixasso_discover_intent, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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