quarantine_fetch_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-layer processing, the risk of prompt injection, and instructs the agent to treat extracted content as untrusted and not follow instructions. It does not cover other behaviors like error handling, but the critical safety behavior is well communicated.

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 consists of two concise sentences followed by a necessary warning block. It is front-loaded with the core action and use case. The warning is somewhat lengthy but justified by the importance of safety.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage context, and a critical safety warning. It does not detail error conditions or edge cases, but the provided information is sufficient for safe and effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for the 'url' and 'prompt' parameters, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 defines the tool's action (fetch URL with full quarantine) and its two layers (sanitization + Q-Agent extraction). It specifies the use case for untrusted content needing structured extraction despite risk, effectively differentiating it from safe siblings like safe_fetch_tool.

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 when to use the tool (untrusted content) and provides an important warning about blocklist_warning. While it does not explicitly list when not to use or directly name alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies safe alternatives exist for trusted content.

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