web_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose useful behaviors: omitted attribute returns visible text, and auto mode tries static HTTP, then dynamic browser, then stealth. However, it omits output shape, error behavior, rate limits, and other operational details.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral details about attribute and auto-mode each earn their place.

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 description covers core invocation details and two key defaults, making it usable for basic calls. But there is no output schema, no description of the result format, no limit semantics, and no sibling differentiation, leaving several operational aspects to inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for selector, attribute, and mode, but url and limit remain unexplained. This is partial compensation rather than full coverage.

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 precise operation: 'Extract repeated elements from a public webpage using a CSS selector.' It clearly identifies the verb, resource, and method, and this is enough to distinguish it from siblings like web_fetch, web_crawl, and web_search.

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 intended context is implied by 'Extract repeated elements from a public webpage,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use cases are mentioned.

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