trigger_crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optionally persistent' and 'save to local', but does not explain potential side effects like long-running network operations, effects on system state, or authentication requirements. The return format is given, but broader behavioral context is missing.

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?

Description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and while not extremely concise, it avoids redundancy and uses a clear format that aids 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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description covers the main aspects: parameters, return type, and examples. It lacks error handling or edge-case details, but these are not critical for a tool with no required parameters.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description explains each parameter in detail: platforms list, include_url, save_to_local, and provides usage examples. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds semantic meaning beyond the property names.

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 clearly states 'manually trigger a crawl task' with specific parameters and return type. It is distinct from sibling tools like search_rss or get_latest_news which are about retrieval, and no other tool handles crawling triggers.

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 implicitly defines the use case as manually initiating a crawl. Since there are no sibling tools for crawling, explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance is unnecessary, but the description could be more direct about when this is appropriate (e.g., when fresh data is needed).

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