spider_transform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—'No network requests'—which is important and distinguishes it from siblings. However, it does not describe output behavior, error handling, processing limits, or how multiple inputs are handled, leaving notable gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence and a clarifying constraint in the second. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition.

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 combination of a complete schema and the description provides enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and key limitation (no network). The schema covers parameters, and the description supplies the critical distinction from siblings. However, without an output schema or annotations, it could have elaborated on response format or additional preprocessing behaviors, leaving minor 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 already documents all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description only adds a high-level summary of formats, which aligns with the return_format enum but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Transform' and identifies the resource as HTML content, listing target formats (markdown, text, other). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling fetch/crawl tools by stating 'No network requests — processes HTML you provide directly.' This makes it clear what the tool does and how it differs.

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 implies the tool is for processing already-obtained HTML, contrasting with network-fetching siblings like spider_scrape or spider_crawl. It provides clear context for when to use it but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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