get_snapshot_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation fetches and extracts but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it is read-only, required authorizations, rate limits, or what happens with invalid URLs. The mention of return types (text, word count, metadata) is helpful but insufficient.

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 single sentence with two clear parts: the operation and the returns. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers basic purpose and output but lacks usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral traits. It is functional but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds context that 'url' refers to an archived web page and hints that 'timestamp' specifies a snapshot version. However, it does not elaborate on URL format, timestamp syntax, or constraints, so value is moderate.

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 action 'Fetch and extract text content' and the resource 'archived web page', and lists return values. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_availability' or 'get_item_metadata' which serve different purposes.

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 usage for extracting text from a specific snapshot but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_snapshots' or 'search_archive'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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