Archivebox Ingest Archiveresults

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one failure mode ('best-effort', returns {"ingested": None} when no engine is reachable), which is real value beyond structured fields. However, it says nothing about the mutation itself: whether repeated ingestion is idempotent, whether it creates duplicate nodes, or what permissions/engine setup are needed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the degraded-return caveat second. No filler; only minor style noise from the RST-style double-backtick JSON.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still volunteers the no-engine case. The remaining gap is mutation semantics for a write tool with zero annotation coverage, which leaves the agent under-informed about side effects and repeat-call behavior.

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 100% and the single params_json parameter is fully documented in the schema with filter examples. The description adds no filter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a schema-driven parameter applies.

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 names a specific verb pair (list + ingest) and the exact resource and target node type (':ArchiveResult nodes'), so the agent knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling archivebox_get_archiveresults or archivebox_ingest_snapshots, leaving the ingest-vs-read distinction to be inferred from the name.

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 when-to-use guidance. With siblings like archivebox_get_archiveresults (read-only listing) and archivebox_ingest_snapshots (a different ingest target) present, the description should say when ingestion is warranted and which sibling covers the plain read case, but it offers nothing.

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