wayback_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is passive and that it flags interesting URLs. It does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. Provides basic behavioral context but lacks detail on non-destructive guarantees or limitations.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the core purpose and key differentiator ('passive'). Efficiently communicates the tool's value and special feature (flagging interesting URLs). Every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and the interesting URL flagging feature. However, it does not explain the behavior of limit or include_subdomains, nor does it describe the output format or any operational constraints. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps that could impact correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'include_subdomains' parameters. It briefly mentions 'domain' indirectly through the main purpose and 'flags' as a concept, but provides no syntax, defaults, or usage details for individual parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Clearly states it fetches historical URLs for a domain from the Internet Archive. Explicitly mentions surfacing old endpoints, parameters, and forgotten files, with flagged interesting URLs. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like content_discovery (active) and enumerate_subdomains (different scope).

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?

Describes the tool as 'Passive,' implying suitable for passive reconnaissance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or alternative tool suggestions. Usage context is implied but not clearly specified.

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