Argus

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. Fails to explain what 'recovery' entails (archived versions? redirect following? status checking?). Omits read-only nature, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Extremely concise (7 words) and front-loaded with action. Structure is efficient with zero redundancy, though undersized given the complexity (3 undocumented params, no annotations).

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?

Inadequate for complexity: 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and ambiguous behavioral scope ('recover' is undefined). While output schema exists (reducing description burden for return values), critical gaps remain in parameter semantics and behavioral disclosure.

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 coverage is 0%. While 'URL' in the description maps intuitively to the required `url` param, the optional `title` and `domain` parameters are completely undocumented—no explanation of their purpose or when to include them.

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?

Clear verb ('Recover') and resource ('URL') with specific scope ('dead, moved, or unavailable'). Lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like `expand_links` or `search_web`, but the 'dead/unavailable' qualifier provides implicit context.

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 implied usage context ('dead, moved, or unavailable') but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations. No mention of when to prefer this over `search_web` or `expand_links`.

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