jrg_fetch

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes transport (TCP/local) and return fields, but lacks details on safety (read-only implied), error handling, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences: first gives purpose and output, second explains protocol and URL variants. No wasted words, front-loaded content.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers core functionality and input format well. Could mention sibling distinctions or error behavior, but still mostly 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?

Schema description already covers URL format (100% coverage). Description adds value by showing examples and explaining 'jrg://' vs path usage, enhancing understanding beyond 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?

Clearly states verb (Fetch), resource (Jaringan page), and output (structured content: title, body, tags, links). Distinguishes from sibling jrg_fetch_raw by mentioning structured vs raw.

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?

Explains network protocol (TCP or local file root) and URL formats with examples, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like jrg_fetch_raw or jrg_view. Implicit guidance from output type, but no when-to-use/alternatives.

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