extract_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (read-only? destructive?), execution model (synchronous/asynchronous), or limitations (e.g., only works on visible elements). The parameter triggerLazyLoad hints at scrolling but lacks explicit disclosure.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first states purpose, second explains how, third provides examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list of URLs or objects with metadata) or handle edge cases like empty results. The examples help but leave significant gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context around selector/ref usage ('scope extraction') but does not significantly augment the existing parameter descriptions beyond the 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 extracts resources (images, links, media, documents) from a DOM container, using a CSS selector or element ref. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_links (which extracts all links from page) or resolve_blobs.

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 usage context by mentioning scoping extraction to a particular section using selector or ref, and gives examples (e.g., images from a post). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives like batch_download or get_links.

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