static_web_extract

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'stateless' and use of local Firecrawl, but fails to disclose important behaviors: what happens with dynamic pages, error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is too sparse for safe invocation.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action. However, it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness to cover parameters and usage context.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description omits critical context: how artifact_id relates to sibling static_web_get_artifact, what format options exist, and constraints on URLs. For a tool in a family, this is incomplete.

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% (no param descriptions in schema). The description adds no meaning to the three parameters (url, format, max_tokens). It only hints at markdown output but does not explain format options or the role of max_tokens. This leaves agents guessing about parameter usage.

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's action: 'Cheap stateless page render/extract' using local Firecrawl, and specifies what it returns ('markdown plus artifact_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like static_web_search (search) and static_web_get_artifact (get by ID), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description implies it's for quick, stateless extraction but does not contrast with interactive sibling tools (e.g., action_web_navigate) or other static_web tools. Agents lack context for optimal selection.

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