fetch-text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'various HTTP methods' and 'defaults to converting HTML to Markdown format,' which adds some context about functionality. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with non-HTML content, leaving significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external URLs.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating key points. Overall, it's concise with minimal waste.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and output specifics, which are crucial for a tool fetching content from URLs. The schema covers parameters well, but the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'various HTTP methods' and 'defaults to converting HTML to Markdown format,' which loosely relates to 'method' and 'output_format' parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Fetch text content from a URL using various HTTP methods.' It specifies the resource (URL) and action (fetch text content), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch-json' or 'batch-fetch-text' beyond mentioning 'text content' and 'Markdown format.' This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch-json' or 'batch-fetch-text.' It mentions 'various HTTP methods' and 'defaults to converting HTML to Markdown format,' which implies some context, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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