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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the dual extraction approach (trafilatura primary, Playwright fallback) and performance characteristics ('fast'), but doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes 'clean' extraction. It adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs web scraping.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with all essential information. Every word earns its place by conveying the core functionality, implementation approach, and performance characteristics without any redundant or unnecessary information.

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 this is a web scraping tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It explains what the tool does but doesn't describe return values, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. For a tool that interacts with external websites and has potential complexity around JavaScript rendering, more context about limitations and outputs would be helpful.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (url and timeout). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions URL extraction generally but provides no additional details about URL formats, timeout implications, or extraction behavior differences based on parameters.

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 specific action ('extract clean text/markdown content'), target resource ('from a URL'), and implementation details ('using trafilatura with optional Playwright fallback'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'compile_report' and 'extract_batch' by focusing on single URL content extraction rather than batch processing or report generation.

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 about when to use this tool ('fast' extraction, JS-rendered pages via fallback), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools. It implies usage for content extraction from URLs but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to 'extract_batch' for multiple URLs.

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