archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves metadata but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details (e.g., identifier source). There's no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic use. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'id' with examples. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter's purpose ('by its identifier'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. With 0 parameters beyond the one covered, baseline 4 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 the specific action ('Retrieve full metadata'), the resource ('an Internet Archive item'), and the method ('by its identifier'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' (which likely finds items) and 'wayback_check' (which likely checks availability).

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 when you have a specific identifier and need metadata, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'search' (e.g., for finding items without an ID) or 'wayback_check' (e.g., for availability). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions support for Lucene query syntax, which adds some context, but it does not cover important aspects such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what the response format looks like (especially since there is no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key feature (Lucene query syntax). Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, response format) and does not compensate for the absence of structured data. While it covers the purpose well, it falls short in providing enough context for reliable tool invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit') with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying the query syntax (Lucene) but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Internet Archive'), listing the types of items it searches for (texts, audio, video, software, and other items). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_metadata' and 'wayback_check' by focusing on search functionality rather than metadata retrieval or Wayback Machine checks.

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 by specifying what the tool searches for and mentioning Lucene query syntax, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_metadata' or 'wayback_check'. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's purpose but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no snapshot exists. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with an external service.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('check whether a URL has ever been archived') and adds necessary detail ('retrieve the closest available snapshot') without any wasted words or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (interacting with an external archive service), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error cases, which are important for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'url' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format constraints or examples beyond the schema's example, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('check whether a URL has ever been archived') and resource ('Wayback Machine'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'retrieve the closest available snapshot' which suggests a different function than 'get_metadata' or 'search'.

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 checking URL archival status and retrieving snapshots, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'get_metadata' or 'search', leaving the agent to infer based on the described functionality.

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