devin_web_fetch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that navigation, ads, and scripts are stripped and that output is cleaned Markdown/text, but says nothing about JS-rendered pages, redirect/timeout/error behavior, auth-gated content, or size limits — notable gaps for a fetch tool.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then the value-add (content cleaning) and output form. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter fetch tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what it does and the output flavor, but omits the third output mode ('summary'), and any failure/rendering behavior an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only loosely echoes the output-format parameter and, notably, mentions just 'Markdown 或纯文本' while the enum also includes 'summary', so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and slightly under-describes it.

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 names a specific verb (抓取/lightweight fetch) and resource (指定网页的正文内容), and adds what distinguishes the result (自动剔除导航、广告与脚本). It is clearly a fetch tool rather than a search tool, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with its sibling devin_web_search.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 轻量 hints at a lightweight/limited tradeoff but never states the condition (e.g. JS-heavy pages, pages needing rendering) or points to an alternative tool such as devin_web_search. The agent must infer routing from the phrase alone.

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