Get crawl file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the file is read from the crawl's output directory on disk, but says nothing about missing-file behavior, path constraints on filename, content type (text vs binary), or size 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?

The route line and the one-sentence summary are front-loaded and efficient, but the Args block occupies roughly half the text while conveying zero information beyond the parameter names. Structure is fine; the content budget is spent poorly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and it never says whether the file content comes back as text, base64, or a path reference. For a file-retrieval tool surrounded by near-identical root/folder/subfolder siblings, that omission plus the missing disambiguation leaves the agent under-informed.

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 full burden, yet the Args block only restates the names ("The crawl id.", "File name."). It gives no format, no constraint that filename must be a bare name without path separators, and no relationship between the two parameters beyond what the route string implies.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Read a file at the root of a crawl's output directory") plus the underlying route, so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. The phrase "at the root" implicitly separates it from the folder/subfolder file siblings, but those alternatives are never named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the scope phrase "at the root of a crawl's output directory"; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over archivebox_get_crawl_folder_file, archivebox_get_crawl_subfolder_file, or archivebox_get_any. No preconditions (crawl must exist, crawl must have finished) are mentioned.

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