test_extraction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'test data extraction' without describing side effects, prerequisites, return values, or whether it modifies configuration. The behavior beyond the stated action is entirely opaque.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the basic purpose. However, its brevity contributes to the lack of detail, which slightly reduces the score.

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 tool has two parameters, one optional nested object, and no output schema, while the sibling list indicates a complex scraping workflow. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., initialized browser), expected results, or how this test fits into the broader flow. The provided context is insufficient for an agent to know how to use this optimally.

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%, and the schema descriptions for url and selectors are minimal but present. The phrase 'using current selectors' adds a hint that selectors may be optional or come from configuration, but it does not clarify the relationship between the selectors parameter and the 'current' selectors. This is acceptable but not enriched.

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 provides a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('data extraction') with a qualifier ('using current selectors'), which conveys the core action. It distinguishes from some siblings like validate_selectors by focusing on actual extraction rather than just validation, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. While 'test data extraction' implies a use case, there is no mention of when to prefer this over validate_selectors, inspect_field_manually, or other sibling tools, leaving the decision to the agent.

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