test_scrape_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: the tool does not create a recipe (no side effects) and returns success:false when the scraper cannot parse the site. This covers the primary behavioral expectations, though it does not specify the success response format in detail.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about success:false is added efficiently.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate. It conveys the purpose, side-effect-free nature, and the error condition. A perfect score would require explicit mention of the success return value, but this is a minor gap.

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 already covers 100% of parameter meaning with the description 'URL of the recipe page to test scraping'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to test if a URL can be scraped for recipe data. It uses a specific verb ('test'), identifies the resource ('URL'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_recipe_from_url' by explicitly noting it does not create a recipe.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool ('validating URLs before importing') and implies an alternative (actual importing, likely via create_recipe_from_url). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of an explicit 5.

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