web_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (persisting to archive), format conversion (HTML to markdown), URL restrictions, and optional auth token. It doesn't detail error handling or redirect behavior, but the core behaviors are well covered.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses an Args list for parameter details. No redundant fluff; every sentence adds value.

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's complexity is moderate (3 params, 1 required) and an output schema exists. The description covers behavior, side effects, constraints, and all parameters, making it sufficient for correct selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters: url (http/https only), timeout (seconds, default 30, max 120), and token (optional Bearer). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 states it fetches a URL and archives the result, converting HTML to markdown and persisting as a timestamped JSONL entry. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search (search) and playwright_* (browser automation).

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 implies usage for fetching and archiving web content, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like web_search or playwright_navigate. It provides constraints (http/https only, private IPs blocked) but no direct comparison or exclusions.

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