Clone a website section

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: scripts/handlers are stripped, inline SVG is preserved, CSS is scoped to the matched subtree and its @keyframes/@font-face dependencies, and assets are downloaded/rewritten when outputDir is set. This gives the agent a clear model of what transformations occur, though it does not touch on rate limits or overwrite behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a precise list of outputs and the outputDir conditional. Every clause adds information—there is no filler or repetition of the tool title.

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 14 parameters, rich schema descriptions, an output schema, and annotations, the description efficiently covers the core output contract and the key mode switch (outputDir). It leaves edge-case behavior (e.g., asset embedding without outputDir) to the output schema/schema defaults, which is acceptable.

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 input schema achieves 100% description coverage for all 14 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only refreshes the meaning of outputDir (downloading and rewriting asset URLs) and does not add new semantics for individual parameters beyond what their schema descriptions already state.

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 opens with 'Return a self-contained copy of one section' and enumerates the exact contents: cleaned HTML, scoped CSS with keyframes/font-face, assets, and screenshot. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like capture_screenshot or extract_assets by focusing on a fully standalone section clone.

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 explanation of the outputDir mode ('With outputDir the assets are downloaded and URLs rewritten...') gives conditional guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose clone_section over alternatives like extract_assets or inspect_component. Usage context is implied rather than directly contrasted with sibling tools.

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