arc_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the asynchronous nature and use of browser session/cookies, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or potential failures. It adds some value beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's primary purpose and key behavior 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?

The description mentions the need to use arc_get_fetch_result to retrieve results, but does not explain the correlation via request_id or the format of the response. Given the lack of output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool sends API requests using browser session/cookies, and specifies it is asynchronous with results obtained via arc_get_fetch_result. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools like arc_execute_javascript.

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 mentions '非同期' (asynchronous) and explicitly names arc_get_fetch_result for result retrieval, guiding the agent on the correct workflow. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios.

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