Веб-фетч (glyph)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool strips HTML/JS/navigation/ads and returns flat text, and notes limitations for dynamic pages. However, it omits details like redirect handling, timeout, or whether it follows robots.txt, which could affect behavior.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action and limitations. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description explains what it returns (flat text) and its limitations. It is mostly complete but could mention response format or error handling for full context.

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%—both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minimal value beyond restating the default max_chars (8000) and that url must be absolute http(s). No additional semantic enrichment.

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 the tool loads URLs as pure flat text, specifies the resource (web pages), and distinguishes it from inappropriate uses (JS-heavy SPA). It explicitly mentions the verb and resource, providing high clarity.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool (static/text pages) and when not to (JS-heavy SPA), even suggesting an alternative ('built-in web fetch'). This provides clear usage guidance beyond general context.

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