extract_readable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action and output but does not mention behavior for failed fetches, redirects, JavaScript-rendered pages, rate limits, or what happens when no readable content is found.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, making it 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential contract: given a URL, return the readable body text and title. It is slightly thin on corner cases like timeout or blocked pages, but given the low complexity, this is adequate for an agent to use it correctly in most situations.

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 100%, so the single url parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the load.

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 action ('抓取页面并抽取') and the specific output ('可读正文与标题'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool fetch_html, which would return raw page structure, and query_selector, which extracts arbitrary elements. Even without naming siblings, the purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the related tools fetch_html or query_selector. An agent must infer that this is the right choice for clean article text, but no explicit 'use this when...' or exclusion criteria are provided.

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