generate_scraper_code

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 only mentions that only curl_cffi is supported and that it uses flow IDs, but does not disclose side effects, safety traits (e.g., read-only vs mutation), or return value behavior beyond what output schema might indicate.

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 fairly concise but includes a TODO comment that adds noise and may confuse agents. It uses an 'Args' section for clarity, but the TODO detracts from professionalism and focus.

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?

Despite having 2 parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain what the generated code looks like (e.g., format, language, or how to use it). The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior and output.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains flow_ids as a comma-separated list and target_framework as the framework (with a TODO note about future support). While this adds basic meaning, it lacks constraints, examples, or clarification on format (e.g., valid flow IDs).

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 it generates executable scraper/automation code from flow IDs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform inspection, traffic management, or other actions, as no other sibling generates code.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to similar tools like extract_from_flow or inspect_flow.

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