agentek-eth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions fetching HTML and extracting main text 'as accurately as possible,' but lacks details on error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs or blocked sites), rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds a key limitation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like error cases, performance limits, output structure, and how 'main text content' is defined. For a web scraping tool with potential complexities, this leaves too much undefined.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds value by clarifying that the 'website' parameter is a URL to fetch content from. However, it doesn't specify URL format constraints (e.g., must include http://) or validation rules, so it partially compensates but not fully for the low schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'fetch the page's HTML and return the main text content' for a given URL. It specifies the verb (fetch), resource (web page content), and scope (most websites). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'checkMaliciousWebsite' or other web-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage context with 'Works for most websites,' suggesting it's not universal and may fail on some sites. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'checkMaliciousWebsite'), or prerequisites like URL format requirements, leaving room for improvement.

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