scraper_status

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

The description discloses what aspects it checks, but it doesn't mention side effects (likely none), performance, or how it gets the status. It does not contradict annotations (none provided). It provides a reasonable overview but lacks detail beyond the listed checks.

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 a single sentence but quite long, listing many checks. It's informative but could be structured better (e.g., separate the blocking factors). It's reasonably concise for the amount of information, and front-loads 'Check how the scraping and data layers are configured'.

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 zero parameters and the output schema existing (not shown but mentioned), the description explains what the tool checks and mentions 'anything blocking a live scrape' which is the likely use case. It seems complete enough for an agent to know when to invoke it, though it could explicitly state that it returns a status report.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description fully compensates by explaining what the tool reports, which is the main value. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description provides ample context on what the status includes.

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 what the tool does: checks the configuration of scraping and data layers, listing specific aspects like browser enabled, allowlisted domains, robots.txt enforcement, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling scraping tools by focusing on status/config rather than executing a scrape.

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?

It implies usage for diagnosing why a live scrape might fail or to check configuration, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. other scraping tools. However, the sibling list includes scraping tools, and this tool's focus on status suggests a pre-flight check, but guidance is not explicit.

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