fetch_archived

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavior: fetches from archive instead of live, returns clean markdown tagged with capture date. This gives the agent expectations about output format and provenance. Could go further on error behavior (e.g., when no snapshot exists), but the core behavioral profile is well covered.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then use cases, then output format. Zero fluff, every sentence earns its place. The second sentence explains both the 'why' and 'what you get,' and the third gives actionable routing guidance. Exemplary conciseness for a tool description.

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 tool has a clear purpose, a strong routing recommendation against a named sibling, and clean output ('clean markdown, tagged with its capture date'). With an output schema present, return-value details don't need elaboration. Given the moderate complexity and strong supporting signals, the description is complete for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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%, and the description mentions no parameters explicitly. However, only one parameter is required (url), and the prompt suggests max_chars/start_char relate to pagination within the markdown (defaults given). Since the description doesn't explicitly explain these params, it relies on the schema's defaults and naming. Behavior of max_chars/start_char is intuitive from names — with 0% coverage but 3 simple params, the description could add a bit more, but the schema defaults carry reasonable meaning.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Fetch a page from the Wayback Machine (archive.org) instead of live.' Clearly states what it does and differentiates from the sibling 'fetch_page'. Explicitly mentions the output ('clean markdown, tagged with capture date') and problem cases, which distinguishes it well from related archive tools like 'archive_search' and 'archive_page'.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Reach for this when fetch_page returns a wall, or when you want the historical version' with concrete scenarios (bot walls, IP-blocked sites, dead links, changed content). Names the specific sibling alternative (fetch_page) and the condition under which to prefer this tool. Strong guidance for agent selection.

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