extract_meta

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded) or any side effects. Acceptable but minimal for a simple read tool.

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?

Single sentence, direct and informative, with no wasted words. Perfectly concise for what it describes.

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?

For a simple read operation with no parameters or output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what is extracted, though mentioning the return format would improve completeness. Still good for basic context.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 applies as the schema covers all parameter details.

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 extracts meta tags (og:, twitter:, description, etc.) from the current page. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page_content or get_html_source which return broader page content.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The purpose implies use for metadata extraction, but there's no mention of when not to use it or comparison with similar tools like get_page_content.

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