Get crawl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by revealing that as_rss changes the response format entirely and that the two with_* flags embed nested data, but it says nothing about response size, pagination of embedded snapshots, or failure behavior for a missing crawl_id.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and then a compact Args block; every line carries information. The raw HTTP path in the first line is largely redundant with the tool name and costs a sentence of attention, but overall it is tight and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say something about what comes back, and apart from the RSS note and the 'embed' hints it does not describe the returned crawl object or nesting depth. For a four-parameter read tool with rich annotations this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about response shape and size.

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 carries the burden, and it does provide a one-line gloss for each of the four parameters. However, 'as_rss: Return the crawl's snapshots as an RSS feed' is ambiguous about whether the crawl metadata is also included, and there is no note on whether with_archiveresults implies with_snapshots or on id format for crawl_id.

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: 'Read one crawl, optionally with its snapshots and archive results', reinforced by the endpoint path. An agent can distinguish this from the list-style sibling archivebox_get_crawls. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred 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?

Usage is only implied: the requirement for a crawl_id and the optional embedding flags suggest when the tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'do not use for listing, use get_crawls instead' guidance. Nothing steers the agent away from the many other get_* siblings when a different resource is actually wanted.

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