stl_web_capture

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

The description discloses rate limiting, the conditional-request cache, the hashing strategy, and the fact that the tool fetches and stores data. It also notes the external dependency ('unpaid guest on Metro infrastructure'), which is relevant context. It does not detail all side effects of 'force', but overall behavior is transparent.

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 slightly verbose but well-organized. It leads with the core purpose, then explains the hashing rationale, rate limit, and parameter details. The extra context about being an 'unpaid guest' is mildly tangential but supports appropriate usage.

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 covers the tool's purpose, key behaviors, rate limits, and both parameters. An output schema is indicated as present, so not detailing return values is acceptable. The only minor omission is a more explicit statement of what the stored result is or how it can be retrieved later.

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 provides only names, types, and defaults, but the description compensates by enumerating valid page values and explaining the 'force' parameter. The meaning of omitting 'page' ('capture all') is also clarified. This is sufficient despite the schema itself having no descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Fetch, normalize, extract and store a Metro web page.' It uses specific verbs and a concrete resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like stl_web_list, stl_web_extract, and stl_web_check.

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 explains the rate-limiting policy ('one fetch per page per day'), how to bypass it with 'force', and the rationale for hashing extracted content. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling web tools, but the provided page values and capture-all behavior give enough practical guidance.

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