scrape_page

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 discloses that it uses a 'real browser,' truncates body text to 'first 5000 chars,' caps links at 'up to 30,' and optionally uses a CSS selector for specific content. These limitations are explicit and useful. However, it does not mention error handling, wait times, or bot detection implications, which could be relevant but are not strictly necessary for basic use.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action and output, followed by the optional selector. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant phrasing. It wastes no words and is easy to parse quickly.

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 relatively simple scraping tool, the description covers the essential inputs, the extraction behavior, and the return content. It does not have an output schema, but the description enumerates what is returned. It omits non-critical details like timeout behavior or concurrency limits, but for most use cases the information is sufficient. Slightly more context on when to use it would push this to a 5.

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 clarify the parameters. It explains 'url' as the target to navigate and defines 'selector' as 'a CSS selector to extract a specific element's text.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema types (string, string). It does not fully detail edge cases (e.g., invalid selector), but the core usage is clearly communicated.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Navigates to a URL with a real browser and extracts structured content.' It lists the exact content items (title, meta description, body text, links) and the optional selector capability. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools take_screenshot and run_visual_test, which are visual in nature.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (take_screenshot, run_visual_test). It does not mention when not to use it, what alternatives exist, or any prerequisites like needing to scroll or handle dynamic content. The usage is only implied by the description of the extraction behavior, not stated.

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