clip_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it flags 'SIDE-EFFECTFUL', 'NOT idempotent / no de-dup', auth defaults, upstream throttling, AUTH_REQUIRED error details, and return format. This is comprehensive behavioral 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?

Every sentence earns its place: side-effect warning, process, idempotency, auth, rate limits, errors, return, usage. Dense but well-organized and front-loaded with the most critical warning.

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 complexity (external fetch, auth, error handling) and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains return values, error codes, and operational caveats. No significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage for parameters is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by giving concrete examples for `headers` (Cookie, Authorization) and tying them to the auth flow, enhancing agent understanding.

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 tool 'fetches an EXTERNAL URL and writes a NEW KB file' and details the full pipeline (download, Readability extraction, markdown conversion, save). This distinguishes it from sibling file-creation tools by focusing on external ingestion.

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?

It provides clear context ('Use to ingest external docs into the KB') and explains when to pass headers for authenticated pages, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it. This is clear guidance without exclusions.

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