extract_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, potential error conditions (e.g., if snapshot not found), rate limits, or if it modifies data. For a fetch-like tool, more clarity on idempotency and safety would be expected.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action (fetch) and result (return text content). Every part is informative and there is no wasted text.

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 explains the main output (readable text content) but does not specify the return format (e.g., plain string), handling of truncation (though max_chars hints at it), or error scenarios. With no output schema, more behavioral detail on the response would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no additional information about the parameters. The url and timestamp are adequately described in the schema, and max_chars has default/min/max constraints that partially convey its semantics. The description does not improve understanding beyond the schema.

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 action (fetch an archived snapshot, return readable text), the resource (archived snapshot), and the key output characteristic (HTML stripped). It distinguishes from siblings like get_screenshot (image) and get_snapshot (likely full HTML).

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 extracting text from archived snapshots, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as get_snapshot and search, it would benefit from stating when to prefer this tool over those alternatives.

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