Wayback アーカイブ URL 列挙

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 discloses its domain-based enumeration nature and date filtering, but does not mention output format, pagination, rate limits, or other operational behaviors. The key caveat (not full-text) is present, but more detail on what the API returns would improve transparency.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a use-case scenario and a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary information, making it well-structured and concise.

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 schema covers all parameters, and the description provides important context about when to use the tool and its limitation as a domain-based enumerator. However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of URLs) to be fully complete. This omission prevents a higher score.

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 all seven parameters well. The description reinforces the meaning of the url parameter (domain or path) and the date-based parameters (from/to), but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, fitting the baseline of 3.

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 function: using the Internet Archive CDX API to enumerate URLs under a domain or path with date filtering. It also distinguishes itself from full-text search, differentiating it from sibling search tools like warp_search_url and marginalia_search_url.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: as a starting point for finding old personal sites that have disappeared from Google's index. It also explicitly states that it is not a full-text search and cannot search by content, giving a decisive exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for content-based search.

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