fetch_archived_text

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

Discloses stripping HTML/scripts/nav/Wayback toolbar and context window handling, but does not specify return format or potential rate limits. With no annotations, more detail on behavior (e.g., truncation) would be helpful.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key information (purpose, cleaning, context window). No redundant words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers main aspects: what it does, cleaning, context window. Lacks explicit mention of return format or metadata, but given no output schema and simplicity of the tool, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is low (33%), but the description adds context: cleaning and context window explain the purpose of url and max_chars. However, it does not provide explicit details for each parameter, only overarching behavior.

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?

Describes fetching an archived snapshot and returning clean readable text, which clearly states the action and output. Distinguishes itself from siblings like archive_url (archiving) and compare_snapshots (comparison) by focusing on text extraction.

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?

Implies use for obtaining clean text for LLM context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., get_archived might return raw HTML) but no guidance is provided.

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