Extract feed posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that it extracts structured records, but it does not describe important behaviors such as pagination handling, limits, whether it mutates the page, or what happens if no feed is found. The description is also silent on permission requirements (e.g., claiming tabs) even though related tools exist. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with the browser state.

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 very concise, a single sentence that captures the core purpose. It front-loads the key output and differentiator. However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from usage hints, but it is adequately sized for a tool with a rich schema.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how the extraction behaves with respect to the scope parameter, or any side effects. It doesn't clarify what happens with 'live flags' or how times are formatted. An agent would need to guess many details from the schema alone, making it incomplete for a full understanding.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is documented. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'structured feed/post records'. The schema covers the semantics of each parameter, so the description does not need to repeat it)Skip. However, the description could add context on how parameters like 'scope' interact with feed extraction, but that is not present, so it is at baseline.

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 purpose: to extract structured feed/post records (author, text, times, live flags) from a scoped feed region. It also distinguishes it from other extraction tools like extract_elements by mentioning 'without site-specific selectors' and 'structured feed/post records'. However, it does not name a specific sibling to differentiate from, and the purpose is somewhat narrow to feeds, which is clear but not maximally distinctive.

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 usage for feed extraction, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like extract_elements or visible_snapshot for cases where site-specific selectors are needed. The context of 'without site-specific selectors' hints at the use case but does not fully explain the trade-offs.

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