trigger_crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format, failed_platforms field, persistence option (save_to_local), and the effect of include_url. It does not mention potential side effects like network latency or rate limits, but for the tool's scope this is adequate.

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 a well-organized docstring with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is moderately sized but every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero annotations, a full input schema, and rich output expectations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return structure, and practical examples. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need to detail returns, but the description still includes a concise returns overview.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description compensates excellently. It explains each parameter's type, default behavior, meaning (e.g., platforms list with config fallback), and even notes why include_url saves tokens. This is more than sufficient for an AI to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 action ('trigger a crawl task') and its optional persistence feature. It is distinct from sibling read-only tools (get_current_config, get_system_status, etc.), making it the only tool that initiates a crawl.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a manual crawl is needed. It provides concrete examples for common scenarios, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the context is clear and the examples are helpful.

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