trigger_crawl

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 explains key behaviors: optional persistence (save_to_local), token-saving behavior (include_url default False), and the return format (success/failure platform lists and news data). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network calls, rate limits, or whether the crawl is asynchronous, which would be relevant for a trigger-type 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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. The examples are helpful for quick comprehension.

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 and zero annotation support, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return format, and examples. It lacks details about expected execution time, failure handling, or how results can be retrieved after a crawl (if not saved locally), but the output schema and sibling tools mitigate some of this. The description is complete enough for common use cases.

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 description significantly enriches the bare schema by explaining each parameter's meaning and default behavior. It clarifies that 'platforms' defaults to all platforms, 'save_to_local' controls saving to the output directory, and 'include_url' saves tokens by defaulting to False. This is far more than the schema provides, making parameter understanding immediate.

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: '手动触发一次爬取任务' (manually trigger a crawl task), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_latest_news or get_rss_feeds_status by focusing on triggering a crawl rather than reading data. The optional persistence detail further clarifies its scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over the many sibling read-oriented tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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