recover_dead_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the core transformation (recover into a report) but does not disclose behaviors such as whether it fetches content, requires permissions, modifies external state, or has rate limits. The agent is left to guess what 'recover' implies operationally.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, which is maximally concise. However, it sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, but it lacks supporting detail.

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 has three parameters and an output schema exists, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what a 'dead article' is, how 'recovery' works, what the local report contains, or any side effects. The output schema may cover return structure, but the overall process remains unclear.

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 has three parameters (url required, title and domain optional) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone. For a tool with three parameters, this is insufficient.

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 action: 'Recover a dead article into a local report with citations.' It specifies the resource (dead article) and the outcome (local report). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'recover_url', which may share a similar purpose, so it misses the opportunity to clarify when this tool is distinct.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recover_url'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., what constitutes a 'dead' article), or when not to use it. The description is purely functional without any contextual hints.

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