chaprola_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose several behavioral traits: SSRF protection, rate limit of 20/day, and HTML-to-markdown conversion. These add meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention error handling, response structure, or behavior for non-HTML content, so it falls short of full transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It is succinct without sacrificing necessary information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify return values, but it only vaguely says 'clean content.' The inclusion of format options (especially 'json') implies structured output that is not explained. While the core functionality is clear, the description lacks details on response format, error conditions, and edge cases, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a default behavior (HTML converted to markdown) that aligns with the format parameter, but it does not explain parameter specifics or constraints beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 fetches any URL and returns clean content, with HTML converted to markdown. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like chaprola_import_url or chaprola_download, so it misses the sibling differentiation needed for a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools. The rate limit is a constraint but not a usage guideline. The tool lacks any explicit 'use this when' or 'consider this instead' direction.

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