WET - Web Extended Toolkit

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-open-world, and idempotent hints, which the description does not repeat. The description adds value by specifying the use case (when compressed descriptions are insufficient) and listing valid tool names, providing practical context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and valid inputs. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding. It's efficiently structured without redundancy.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, annotations provided, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter context adequately, and the output schema handles return values, so no gaps remain for this context.

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 carries the burden. It explains that 'tool_name' refers to a tool for which to get documentation and lists valid names (search, extract, media, config, help), adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail the default value or format constraints.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full documentation for a tool'), making the purpose specific and clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on comprehensive documentation rather than functional operations like search or extract.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use when compressed descriptions are insufficient.' It also lists valid tool names, implicitly defining scope and alternatives. This gives clear context for when to apply this tool versus relying on other descriptions.

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