trigger_crawl

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 discloses optional local saving, token-saving behavior of include_url, and the return status format. However, it does not clarify what happens to data when save_to_local is False, whether the crawl writes to system storage, or operational traits like runtime and failure behavior.

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 well-organized with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every section adds practical value. The examples are useful without being redundant.

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?

For a tool with three optional parameters, an output schema, and no required params, the description covers all parameter semantics, defaults, and return behavior. Minor gaps remain around what 'optional persistence' means when save_to_local is False and how the tool should be selected over sibling sync tools, but overall it is sufficiently complete for 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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: platforms with example values and default-all behavior, save_to_local as optional persistence, and include_url as a token-saving toggle. This adds meaning well beyond the bare boolean/array schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: manually triggering a crawl task, with optional persistence. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like get_latest_news or sync_from_remote by the concept of triggering a crawl.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sync_from_remote or scheduled crawling. The examples show valid invocations but do not state conditions, exclusions, or when another tool should be preferred.

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