Get binaries by name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need not repeat it. Beyond that, the description adds almost nothing: no return shape, no empty-result behavior, no indication of whether the match is exact or case-sensitive. The only extra context is the word 'installed', which hints the scope is local machine binaries.

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 text is short, but the opening HTTP route line is noise for an agent invoking the tool, and the 'Args:' block duplicates the schema verbatim. The one genuinely informative clause ('List the installed binaries with this name') is buried after the route string rather than front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read with no output schema, so the description should carry the burden of explaining what comes back and how filtering behaves. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or the match semantics.

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%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could be added. Instead it offers 'name: Binary name.', which is a pure restatement of the parameter identifier. It does not state whether matching is exact or substring, case-sensitive, or whether a path-like identifier is accepted.

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 sentence 'List the installed binaries with this name' does state a verb and resource, and 'with this name' signals a filtered lookup. However, it opens with a raw HTTP route that adds no semantic value, and it never clarifies what an ArchiveBox 'binary' is versus the sibling get_binaries/get_binary tools. An agent can guess it retrieves binaries filtered by name, but the distinction from siblings is only inferable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus archivebox_get_binaries (list all) or archivebox_get_binary (single fetch by id). No preconditions, no mention of what happens when no binary matches the name. The agent must infer the selection rule from the names alone.

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