web_parse_file

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention potential side effects like large downloads, handling of malformed files, authentication requirements, or the meaning of 'provenance'. Important behavioral aspects are omitted.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys core functionality. However, it sacrifices necessary parameter details for brevity. Front-loading is adequate.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, output format specification, and usage context, which is critical for correct agent invocation.

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 explain any of the four parameters (url, lang, max_rows, use_cache). Users must rely solely on parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 specific function: downloading and parsing CSV/TSV/XLSX/PDF/JSON files, returning structured rows or extracted text with provenance. It distinctively covers multiple file formats, setting it apart from sibling tools like web_extract or web_read which handle general webpage 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 (e.g., web_fetch_json for JSON APIs, web_extract for table extraction from HTML). The description implies file parsing but does not provide context for usage boundaries or contraindications.

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