detect_content_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose but does not reveal network behavior, timeout handling, error conditions, or response semantics. The timeout_profile parameter's effect is never mentioned, leaving the agent without essential behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is efficient but perhaps too sparse, sacrificing informational value for brevity. It earns a 4 for clear structure and absence of 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?

The tool is simple but still performs a network operation with configurable timeout. The lack of usage context, parameter details, and behavioral notes leaves the agent underinformed. The presence of an output schema is noted in context but not shown, and the description does not reference it.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It only hints at 'url' as the target but provides no detail on timeout_profile, its default, or its accepted values. The description adds negligible value beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'detect' with the resource 'content type of URL' and concrete examples (HTML, PDF, image). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_url or get_metadata, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as pre-scraping checks or how it relates to sibling tools like download_file or scrape_url. The usage context is only implied.

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