spa-dom-to-md

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: real headless Chromium via Cloudflare Browser Rendering, network-idle/selector-ready waiting, chrome stripping, and a per-call cost of 0.03 USDC paid from BASE_PRIVATE_KEY. This goes well beyond a simple render-to-markdown claim, though it omits rate limits, timeouts, and failure behavior.

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, each earning its place: main behavior, cost/payment, and input documentation pointer. The first sentence is dense but not padded, and the key rendering purpose is front-loaded.

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 complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core rendering pipeline, cost, funding source, and input docs location. It does not explain return structure beyond 'Markdown' or error/timeout behavior, and it lacks explicit sibling distinctions, but the provided details are substantial.

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?

The input schema is an open object with additionalProperties true, so it defines no real fields. The description adds that request body fields are tool-specific and points to an OpenAPI spec, telling the agent where to get the actual parameter definitions. This exceeds the empty schema, though it does not inline the parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: renders JS-heavy SPA pages in headless Chromium and serializes the fully-rendered DOM into Markdown. It also specifies what it strips (nav/footer/script chrome), which clearly separates it from a generic markdown extractor.

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 context for use is implied by 'Renders JavaScript-heavy SPA pages in real headless Chromium' – an agent can infer this is for dynamic pages requiring real browser rendering. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/not-use guidance or comparison against siblings like markdown-extractor.

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