generate_scraper_code

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says code is generated from flow IDs. It does not mention side effects, required state (e.g., existing flows), how the code is returned, or whether this operation is read-only.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear Args structure to explain the two parameters. There is no filler or redundant information.

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?

The description covers the core input semantics and the output schema exists, but it leaves gaps an agent would need for confident invocation: accepted target_framework values and when to prefer this tool over related automation features. It is minimally sufficient rather than fully complete.

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 Args section adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining flow_ids is a comma-separated list and that target_framework selects the code generation framework. However, it omits valid framework choices or defaults beyond the schema's default, causing limited compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific verb and object: 'Generate executable scraper/automation code,' then specifies input (comma-separated flow IDs). This clearly communicates the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools that inspect traffic, manage proxies, or manipulate rules.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites such as capturing flows first. It simply states what the tool does, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate context.

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