ig_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it specifies output contents, the extraction pipeline (instaloader → gallery-dl fallback), supported URL patterns, and the login prerequisite for private/rate-limited cases. It stops short of detailing error handling or exact response structure, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences carry a high information density: purpose, return values, supported URL patterns, implementation strategy, and auth requirement. Every phrase earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what inputs are accepted, what outputs to expect, and when login is necessary. It does not describe error behavior or response formatting in detail, but for a tool of this complexity the disclosed information is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline for parameter semantics is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that login is needed for private/rate-limited content, which directly ties to the optional session_user parameter and clarifies when it must be supplied. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('konten Instagram'), enumerating supported content types (post, reel, carousel) and explicit return values (caption, media URLs per slide, metadata). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ig_to_screener by framing it as raw content extraction rather than transformation or parsing.

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 gives clear context for when the tool works—supporting /p/ and /reel/ URLs and noting login requirements for private/rate-limited content. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the choice between ig_extract and ig_to_screener implicit rather than stated.

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