scrape_generic

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

The description states it delegates to a CLI scraper module, giving a hint of internal behavior, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what exactly is modified or created. As annotations are absent, this insufficiently covers behavioral traits.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loads the action and examples, but could be slightly more structured to improve scannability. Overall, it's efficient with no wasted words.

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's complexity (4 parameters, many source types, delegation pattern), the description omits critical context: parameter semantics, output schema contents, prerequisites, and error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional hints.

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%, yet the description provides no information about the four parameters (source_type, name, path, url). It only lists source_type values implicitly via the example list, leaving the meanings of name, path, and url entirely unspecified.

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 scrapes content from new source types, listing ten examples (jupyter, html, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling scrapers like scrape_codebase or scrape_pdf by specifying these alternative source types.

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 use for the listed source types but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling names suggest other scrapers exist, but no direct guidance is provided.

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