extract

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

The description reveals it uses WebReaper and returns JSON Lines, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or side effects. The `browser` parameter behavior is documented in parameters but not in the main description. Without annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden but is only partially transparent.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—defining inputs, schema format, and outputs. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers inputs, schema format, and output format. It does not mention potential failure modes or prerequisites (e.g., browser installation), but the parameter description fills in the browser requirement. Overall, it is adequately complete for basic use.

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 100%, and the description adds clarity by explaining the schema shape and referencing WebReaper docs. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions, which are mostly self-explanatory. The browser parameter's default behavior is noted in the description.

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: 'Extract structured fields from a URL using a JSON schema.' It specifies the schema shape (WebReaper) and return format (JSON Lines), distinguishing it from sibling tools like `extract_inferred` and `extract_with_prompt`.

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 implies usage when you have a JSON schema, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings or provide exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., need for Chromium if using browser parameter), though that is in the parameter description.

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