seekr_prism

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 discloses the tool's behavior as extracting 'detailed text content' and 'full content' from URLs, which is useful. However, it lacks information on potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs, error handling for invalid URLs, or content types). The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it could be more comprehensive given the absence of annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage guidelines. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with essential information, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 (simple single-parameter operation), high schema coverage (100%), and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage context adequately. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, especially since no annotations are provided to fill those 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter well-documented as a 'Valid HTTP/HTTPS URL to prism and extract text content from.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Prism and extract detailed text content from a specific webpage URL.' It uses specific verbs ('prism and extract') and identifies the resource ('webpage URL'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'seekr_query' beyond mentioning 'query results' and 'query snippets,' which is implied but not direct.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to get full content from URLs found in query results. This provides more detailed information than query snippets alone.' It implies an alternative (query snippets from 'seekr_query') and suggests using this for deeper content extraction. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling tool directly.

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