js_getjs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Extract JavaScript files from a URL' and does not reveal whether it downloads files, returns URLs, follows redirects, or requires rendering. Key behavioral details are missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is easy to read, but it is underspecified. It is concise in length but not appropriately sized given the lack of detail about parameters and behavior.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like, how additional_args affects behavior, or any context about typical use. The overall description is minimally viable but lacks necessary context for reliable invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter meaning. The 'url' parameter is obvious from the description, but 'additional_args' is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 'Extract JavaScript files from a URL' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating that the tool extracts JS files from a given URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling JS tools like js_beautify, js_jsluice, and js_paramspider, which focus on beautifying or parsing JS rather than extracting the files themselves.

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 usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The description simply states what the tool does without explaining when to use it over sibling tools like js_jsluice or js_xnlinkfinder, or any exclusions/prerequisites.

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