Extract website assets

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

Annotations indicate open-world behavior (false readOnly, true openWorld), and the description adds that it downloads files into a local folder and generates a manifest.json mapping origins. It goes beyond annotations by clarifying the side effect of writing to disk, though it doesn't mention overwrite behavior or any authorization needs.

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, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and deliverables, the second places it in the replica workflow. Every word earns its place.

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 complex 14-parameter tool, the description plus rich schema and annotations give a complete enough picture for selection and invocation. It covers what it does, what it outputs, and why. It doesn't discuss edge cases, but that's appropriately left to the schema and output schema.

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 description doesn't need to explain individual parameters. The tool description does align with the types enum and mentions the manifest output, but overall it adds little beyond the schema's thorough 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 uses the specific verb 'Download' and clearly enumerates the resource types (real images, background images, inline SVG icons/logos, videos, favicons, web fonts) along with the output (local folder + manifest.json). This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools like extract_animations or capture_screenshot.

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 states the use case: 'Lets a replica reuse the exact original assets instead of re-drawing them.' This provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or name alternative tools for layout/structure extraction.

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