anp.fetchDoc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the core functionality (fetching, parsing, extracting links) and output structure (document content, type information, discovered links), but lacks details about error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics. The description adds value beyond what's in the schema but doesn't provide comprehensive behavioral context.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core functionality, second establishes the exclusive usage context, third specifies the return values. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information about what the tool does.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about functionality and usage boundaries. However, it lacks details about the return format structure, error conditions, or what constitutes 'ANP 文档' versus other URLs. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but has gaps for comprehensive tool usage.

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 description coverage is 100% with the single 'url' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides about the URL parameter. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 with specific verbs ('抓取并解析' - fetch and parse) and resource ('ANP 文档' - ANP document), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly stating it's the '唯一允许方法' (only allowed method) for accessing URLs in the ANP ecosystem. This provides clear differentiation from 'anp.invokeOpenRPC' and 'anp.setAuth' which have different functions.

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 explicit usage guidance by stating this is the '唯一允许方法' (only allowed method) for accessing URLs in the ANP ecosystem, creating a clear boundary for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It establishes this as the mandatory approach for ANP document access, though it doesn't specify when NOT to use it for non-ANP URLs.

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