metaso_reader

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reads URL and converts format) and the output formats, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, restrictions (e.g., paywall, JavaScript-heavy pages), rate limits, or authentication needs. Since the tool seems simple and read-only, a 3 is appropriate—it adds some context but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured: an initial statement, a bulleted list of formats, and a bulleted list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant phrases. It is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, formats, defaults, and use cases. It lacks explicit notes on error handling or limitations, but given the low complexity and clear schema, the description is largely complete. A 4 acknowledges minor missing behavioral context.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions and the enum for format; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a list of supported output formats and default, but this largely duplicates the schema's 'default' field. The description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is fair.

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 specifies that the tool reads a given URL's web content and converts it to structured formats (markdown/json). The verb '读取' and resource 'URL的网页内容' are specific, and the mention of structured output distinguishes it from a generic fetch tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'metaso_search' (which likely searches), so it stops short of a 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 lists concrete applicable scenarios such as extracting news articles, getting main body text, and converting pages to readable format. This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude cases (e.g., 'do not use for search' or 'only for public pages'), but the scenarios are sufficient for basic guidance.

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