extract_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that API key is needed for some sources, describes engine override options, and explains the effects of flags like formulas and pictures. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but still adds significant value.

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 with a clear intro, bulleted argument list, and return type. It is relatively concise, though the argument list could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 6 parameters, no required ones, and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and return type, and provides context on API key requirements. It does not document error cases or additional behavior, but the output schema likely covers structure.

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 6 parameters (url, file_path, engine, formulas, pictures, no_ocr) with details on their usage and effects, going far beyond what the JSON schema provides.

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 extracts content from a URL or file, specifies supported sources (web pages, PDFs, YouTube transcripts), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'summarize_content' by its action of extraction.

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 clear context on when to use the tool, noting that an API key is not needed for most sources but is required for audio/video transcription. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to the sibling tool beyond the action.

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