tools_waybackurls

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but 'Execute waybackurls.' reveals nothing about side effects, network interactions, output format, or required permissions. It is purely a tautological command.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks substantive content and does not earn its place as a useful description.

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?

The tool operates in a complex environment with many sibling tools, but the description provides no context about its role, inputs, outputs, or how it integrates. It is completely inadequate for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 'domain' or 'additional_args'. Users are left to guess that 'domain' is the target domain and 'additional_args' are extra CLI flags, but this is not stated.

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 'Execute waybackurls.' merely restates the tool name with the verb 'execute', providing no information about what the tool actually does, such as querying the Wayback Machine for URLs. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like tools_nmap or tools_subfinder.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lacks any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where waybackurls would be preferred over other tools.

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