Quarantine Fetch Tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the two-layer sanitization/extraction process and discloses critical response behaviors: potential blocklist_warning (prior prompt injection flagging) and security_advisory (active attack), with explicit instructions on how to handle both. This is thorough and goes well beyond a basic fetch description.

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 slightly longer due to two IMPORTANT safety sections, but every sentence earns its place by providing critical security guidance. The core function and usage are front-loaded in the first two lines, and the warnings follow logically. It could be tightened without losing value, but it is still efficient for a security-sensitive tool.

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 presence of an output schema (which covers return values) and the complexity of security warnings, the description covers the essential operational context: when to use, what to expect in terms of risky signals, and how to react. It does not mention well-known fetch considerations like timeouts or size limits, but those are not critical for correct invocation. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 documents both parameters with high coverage (100%): url as 'URL to fetch (http:// or https://)' and prompt as 'Extraction instruction for the Q-Agent.' The description reinforces the Q-Agent extraction context but does not add new parameter-level detail, syntax, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch URL with full quarantine: Layer 1 sanitization + Layer 2 Q-Agent extraction.' It clearly defines the tool's function and differentiates it from safe fetch tools by emphasizing the quarantine and extraction workflow. The use case for untrusted content is also stated, making the purpose immediately identifiable.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this for untrusted content where you need structured extraction despite the risk.' It implies a distinction from safe alternatives, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. The safety instructions (e.g., what to do on blocklist_warning or security_advisory) further guide correct usage.

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