scrape_with_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by noting that screenshots are stored as crawlforge://screenshot/{actionId} resources, which provides useful operational context.

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 very concise: two sentences and an example. It front-loads the key use case and provides an illustrative example without unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity of the tool (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description could be more complete. It does not mention what the scraped output looks like or how to interpret the formats parameter, which is crucial for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description compensates by providing a concrete example of the actions array, making the complex nested structure easier to understand.

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 defines the tool's purpose: interacting with a page before scraping (login, clicks, forms, scroll, dynamic content). It specifically mentions use cases like SPAs, login-gated content, multi-step flows, which distinguishes it from simpler fetching tools.

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 states when to use this tool and provides concrete examples of scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies that for static scraping, other tools are more appropriate.

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