dompruner_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: DOM-refined compact Markdown output with 90%+ token reduction, equivalence to WebFetch, and a fallback mechanism for the query parameter (sampling a URL from the host LLM). While it doesn't cover error handling or rate limits, it discloses the most important behavioral traits.

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 four sentences that are all informative and front-loaded with the core purpose ('DEFAULT tool for retrieving web content'). Every sentence earns its place: purpose, output format, usage preference, and analogy. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, output format, and fallback behavior, making it largely complete for a simple fetch tool. Gaps include no mention of error handling or the provided sibling dompruner_analyze, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the return format. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, and both url and query have detailed descriptions. The url description explains the 'Required unless query is provided' condition, and the query description explains both the fallback and BM25 filtering behavior. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches a URL directly and returns DOM-refined compact Markdown with 90%+ token reduction.' It clearly identifies the tool as a web content retriever and distinguishes it from dompruner_search, which is a sibling alternative mentioned explicitly.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Always prefer this over dompruner_search when the URL is known or can be inferred' and provides examples (official docs, changelogs, blog posts, API references). This clearly communicates when to use this tool versus the search alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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