Wayback スナップショット確認

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

The description discloses that the tool returns the closest snapshot relative to the given timestamp and only one result. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior if no snapshot exists, or any rate constraints. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and this omission leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 covers purpose, usage context, and the snapshot selection rule, but it lacks an explicit statement of what the tool returns (e.g., snapshot URL vs. metadata) and how it signals absence. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a noticeable gap, though the tool is simple.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (url and timestamp), including timestamp formats and default behavior. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states that the tool checks whether a URL is archived in the Internet Archive and retrieves the single snapshot closest to a specified time. This is a specific verb-resource-scope combination, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like wayback_fetch_page or wayback_cdx_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 provides a clear use case: when an old URL is known and you want to verify at minimal cost whether it is still accessible. This implies a lightweight check versus more resource-intensive fetch tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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