fitter_run

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions fetching data via connectors and extracting data, implying network access. However, it omits potential side effects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error scenarios, which would strengthen 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 brief, with a clear structure: first sentence states the tool's purpose, second explains the underlying Fitter mechanism, third gives a usage tip. Every sentence contributes directly to understanding.

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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: config format, supported selectors, and a reference to the config spec tool. It could be more complete by noting potential timeouts or result size limitations, but overall it covers the essential information.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining that config is JSON/YAML, highlighting top-level keys (item, limits, references), and stating that output is JSON. This adds meaningful value.

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 identifies the action ('Run a Fitter scraping/parsing config passed inline') and the resource (inline config). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'inline', contrasting with file- and URL-based tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 advises calling fitter_config_reference first if unsure about the config format, providing clear guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to fitter_run_file or fitter_run_url, leaving the selection of the appropriate sibling somewhat implicit.

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