extract_api_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the auto-detection behavior and return structure. It does not mention edge cases like invalid URLs or unrecognized site types, but for a read-only extraction tool, the main behavior is well-covered.

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 structured with purpose, note about auto-detection, and clearly labeled args and returns. It is reasonably concise, though the return structure could be considered slightly redundant.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how to use, and what output to expect. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise complete.

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 0%, but the description provides clear meaning for both parameters: url (the documentation page URL) and site_type (with explicit allowed values to force a specific extractor). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 extracts structured API endpoint data from API documentation sites. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scrape_page and screenshot_page, which are for general scraping and screenshots.

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 specifies that it works on API documentation sites and can auto-detect site types or be overridden, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the sibling names imply alternatives.

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