probe_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool respects robots.txt and returns images with dimensions and license. This is transparent about its behavior, though it could mention error handling or performance.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that pack all necessary information. No redundant words. It front-loads the core action and then provides 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?

For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers what the tool returns (images with dimensions and license) and its default behavior (respects robots.txt). The context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke it among siblings.

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?

Input schema has 2 params (url, respectRobots) with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies the purpose of the tool and implies usage of both params (url as input, respectRobots via default respect). It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, especially for the boolean parameter.

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 action (return every <img> on a webpage), the resource (given a URL), and the output (images with dimensions and license). It distinguishes itself from siblings like download_image or fetch_with_license by focusing on triaging a source page.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to triage a candidate source page before picking', indicating the intended use case. It also mentions respecting robots.txt by default, providing a constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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