page_model

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes reconstruction of page structure into typed objects with actions and scoring. Lacks details on side effects or permissions, but for a read-only tool it is sufficiently 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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and object types, no wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Three parameters described, no output schema, no annotations. Covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. Could explicitly state return format, but 'JSON objects' and listed types suffice. Fairly complete for a structured extraction tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context: goal is for relevance ranking, limit max objects, types list possible values. Overlap exists with schema, but description explains how goal affects scoring, adding value beyond schema.

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 renders the current page into semantic JSON objects, listing specific object types (search_form, nav_link, etc.) and mentions actions, normalized fields, scoring, and provenance. It distinguishes from siblings by recommending it as the first planning tool after navigate when raw links/text are too wide.

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?

Explicitly states 'Prefer this as the first planning tool after navigate when raw links/text are too wide,' providing clear when-to-use context and implying alternatives like raw extraction tools.

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