capture_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions capture and summarize, but does not disclose if the tool modifies any state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too brief to provide adequate transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It lacks structure and important details. While it has no wasted words, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a summary text or structured data). With three parameters, no annotations, and insufficient context, the description fails to provide a complete picture for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has three parameters (url, hard_page_limit, soft_page_limit) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description adds no meaning for these parameters, such as what the page limits control (e.g., number of pages to crawl or summarize). The agent gets no help understanding how to set them effectively.

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 captures and summarizes important parts of a site, using a specific verb+resource. However, 'important parts' is somewhat vague, and it could be improved by specifying criteria or scope, but it is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools like expand_links or extract_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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract_content or search_web. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the generic description.

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