scrape_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the basic conversion behavior but does not mention dynamic content handling, wait_for behavior, proxy/geolocation behavior, extraction semantics, rate limits, authentication, or error handling. This leaves the agent guessing about important runtime characteristics.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes to either understanding what the tool does or when to use it.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and a rich set of sibling tools (extract_data, crawl_site, batch_scrape). The description covers the simple default use case but leaves advanced invocation and parameter-specific behavior unexplained, so it is not fully contextualized for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description must compensate for 7 undocumented parameters. It only adds minimal meaning by connecting the output format to 'Markdown/JSON', but mode, schema, wait_for, proxy_region, and extract_prompt remain entirely unexplained, making it hard to use the tool beyond defaults.

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 ('采集' / scrape), names the resource ('单个 URL' / single URL), and states the conversion output (Markdown/JSON). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_web, crawl_site, and batch_scrape by emphasizing single-URL scope.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('当用户给出具体网址或询问某页面内容时') and what not to use it for ('不要用于：搜索互联网'), explicitly naming the alternative tool (search_web). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the rubric asks for.

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