Scrapfly Scraping tools instructions // enhanced prompt

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

Annotations already provide clear behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal context beyond them—it implies the tool returns instructions rather than performing scraping, which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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 very concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Return critical instructions'), though it lacks detail. For such a brief tool purpose, this efficiency is appropriate, but it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 low complexity (one dummy parameter, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it doesn't explain what the 'critical instructions' entail or how they're used, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's value. The output schema likely details return values, so the description needn't cover those, but more context on the instructions' nature would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting it as a 'Dummy input (for langchain compatibility).' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers the single parameter. With zero required parameters and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the simplicity of the parameter setup (one optional dummy input) justifies a slightly higher score for clarity.

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 'Return critical instructions for scraping tools' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name/title. While it indicates the tool returns something (instructions), it doesn't specify what type of instructions, for which specific scraping tools, or what makes them 'critical.' It fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'info_account' or 'info_api_key' which might also return information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for when these instructions are needed, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'web_scrape' or 'web_get_page.' Users must infer usage from the vague description alone.

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