extract

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 does not state whether extraction is read-only, what the output looks like, whether side effects exist, or what 'pinned' means. This leaves the agent with no safety or behavior expectations.

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 that front-loads the list of strategies, which is useful. However, it is sparse enough that it feels under-specified rather than purely concise.

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 five parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to cover what the strategies do, how to configure parameters, or what results to expect, making it inadequate for correct 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 coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. The schema shows required fields (urls, strategy, strategy_params) but the description only enumerates potential strategy values without explaining how to populate urls or strategy_params.

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 implies an extraction tool and lists supported strategies, giving some sense of function. However, it lacks a specific verb+resource structure ('extract what from where?') and does not distinguish itself from siblings like html or crawl.

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 guidance is provided on when to use extract versus alternative tools. The strategy list hints at different extraction types but offers no context, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.

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