tooltrace_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that the tool returns extracted content and is meant for read-oriented workflows, but it omits material behavioral details such as rendering cost implications, failure behavior on non-public or dynamic pages, or any rate limits.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise list of outputs and use cases, making it easy for an agent 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool has six parameters including browser rendering modes with credit costs. The description provides useful output and use-case context, but it does not mention rendering/credit implications or operational limitations that would help an agent decide and invoke it confidently.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's list of returned content types loosely maps to the include parameter options, but it adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear verb and resource ('Extract clean content from a webpage') and enumerates the response types. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tooltrace_metadata, tooltrace_links, and tooltrace_schema, which share some of those output types.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for scraping, RAG ingestion, or content analysis,' providing clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it versus the specialized sibling tools.

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