detect_content_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Auto-detect' and 'suggest CSS selectors', which is essentially the tool's purpose. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the returned output format is, whether the page is modified, or how the detection works.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by an explicit usage directive. There is zero wasted wording, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description need not be exhaustive. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the lack of any detail about the format or structure of the suggested selectors leaves an agent guessing about the return value.

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%, and the min_items parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not mention min_items or add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('detect'), resource ('repeated content patterns'), and outcome ('suggest CSS selectors'), with concrete examples (cards, listings, rows). It also names the related tool extract_structured, which distinguishes it from siblings.

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 instruction 'Run this BEFORE extract_structured to find the right selectors' provides an explicit temporal condition and names the alternative tool. An agent can decide when to invoke this tool without further inference.

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