stellaris_live_fetch

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the likely failure mode (site bot challenge), the shape of the failure signal (blocked:true), and the prescribed recovery path. It does not describe what a successful return looks like or any rate/retry constraints, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the expected outcome and fallback front-loaded so an agent reading only the opening clause already knows what to expect.

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?

For a one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, that it usually fails, and exactly what to do next. Missing only success-case return detail and input format guidance.

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 single parameter 'title' is never explained in the description. The meaning is largely self-evident from the tool's domain, but the description adds no format hints (page slug vs. display name) that would help an agent construct a valid call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('attempt a live download of a wiki page') and implies a scope (live fetch vs. cached reads from sibling stellaris_get_page). It does not explicitly name stellaris_get_page as the alternative, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: expect blocked:true, and on that outcome follow the returned workaround using WebFetch + stellaris_kb_add_page. It names a concrete sibling as the fallback path. It stops short of saying when not to call this at all (e.g., prefer stellaris_get_page first).

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