extract_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'auto engine' but doesn't explain what this entails (e.g., extraction capabilities, limitations, or processing behavior). It also lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling beyond the ValueError. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 well-structured and concise, with clear sections for the main description, arguments, returns, and raises. Each sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently organized.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, return format, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral context. Overall, it provides a solid foundation but has room for improvement in transparency.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameters ('url' and 'file_path') and their optional nature, and the 'Raises' section clarifies that exactly one must be provided. However, it doesn't explain the semantics beyond this (e.g., supported URL formats, file types, or path requirements). The description adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Extract content from a URL or file using Content Core's auto engine.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('content'), and method ('auto engine'), but since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides implied usage guidance through the 'Raises' section, which indicates that exactly one of 'url' or 'file_path' must be provided. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other extraction methods or tools), and there are no sibling tools to compare against. The guidance is functional but not comprehensive.

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