curate_to_corpus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the output (markdown with provenance front-matter: source URL, retrieval time, content hash) and mentions default config paths ($MDBROWSE_CORPUS_ROOT, /mnt/herfjotur/work, $MDBROWSE_DF). However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a safe/read-only operation or what side effects occur beyond creating the document. It adds decent behavioral context but doesn't fully cover mutation semantics.

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 front-loaded purpose and inline config details, but it's slightly verbose for a single tool. The branding ('the read it, keep it bridge') and substrate metaphor add flavor but not functional value. The configuration block is useful but could be more compact. Roughly 100 words for a 3-param tool is acceptable but not lean.

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 has a clear output schema, which lightens the return-value burden. The description covers purpose, when-to-use, alternatives, defaults, and output format. For a 3-param tool with rich prose, this is reasonably complete. The main gap is the unexplained 'private' parameter and the absence of caveats about failure modes or prerequisites beyond fetch_page.

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 corpus_root's default resolution behavior ($MDBROWSE_CORPUS_ROOT or /mnt/herfjotur/work) and the df CLI path ($MDBROWSE_DF), which adds real meaning. However, it doesn't explain the 'private' boolean parameter or how 'url' is used beyond 'capture a page.' The corpus_root and url are covered; private is not.

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's action ('Capture a page and FILE it into document-forge') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'For a linked file (PDF/dataset) use download_document instead' and explicitly references fetch_page as the prerequisite. It's clear but slightly verbose with the marketing-style framing.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use after fetch_page when a page is worth KEEPING, not just reading.' It also names the alternative (download_document) for linked files. This is exemplary guidance that directly aids tool selection.

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