detect_content_pattern

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

The description discloses that the tool uses heuristics, returns top-3 candidate selectors ranked by child-similarity, and is intended for scraping. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or describe any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it partially achieves 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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, use cases, and output format. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is largely complete. It explains the detection approach, typical uses, and what is returned. It could mention limitations or assumptions (e.g., page must have repeating elements), but the provided information suffices for understanding.

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 tool has no parameters, so the input schema is empty. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as there are none.

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 function: 'Heuristically detect the most likely repeating container on page.' It specifies the resource (page) and the output (CSS selectors). The use cases listed (job listings, product cards, search results) further clarify its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_structured by focusing on detecting repeating containers rather than extracting data.

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 provides context for when to use it ('Useful for scraping...'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings. This implicit guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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