trigger_crawl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool triggers a crawling task with optional persistence, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when the task completes. The description adds some context about saving locally and token optimization, but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and uses bullet points effectively. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the Chinese-only text might limit accessibility for some agents. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly more 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?

Given the tool has an output schema (Returns JSON format task status information), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It covers the main purpose and parameters well, though for a tool that triggers potentially resource-intensive crawling tasks, more context about execution behavior and constraints would be beneficial. The presence of an output schema reduces the completeness burden.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'platforms' (platform ID list with examples), 'save_to_local' (whether to save to local output directory), and 'include_url' (whether to include URL links to save tokens). The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '手动触发一次爬取任务' (manually trigger a crawling task) with optional persistence. It specifies the action (trigger) and resource (crawling task), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_latest_news' or 'search_news' which might also involve crawling operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when manual triggering is needed versus automated crawling, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_latest_news' or 'sync_from_remote' that might involve similar data collection operations.

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