trigger_crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional persistence to a local directory and that include_url saves tokens, which are useful details. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network load, execution duration, or whether the crawl writes to persistent storage beyond the optional local save. This is a moderate level of transparency for a state-changing action.

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 well-structured as a docstring with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence provides useful information with no filler or redundancy. It is concise yet sufficiently detailed for the tool's simple parameter set.

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 tool's low complexity, the description covers the purpose, all parameters, and return format sufficiently. The output schema exists (though not shown), so the return overview is a bonus. It lacks a note about whether the crawl runs synchronously or asynchronously, and any caveats about resource usage, which would improve completeness for a trigger action.

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 compensates fully. It explains that platforms defaults to all platforms when not specified, save_to_local saves to the output directory, and include_url includes links while helping save tokens. Examples illustrate valid values and combinations, giving the agent a clear understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with '手动触发一次爬取任务' (manually trigger a crawl task), using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-reading tools. The optional persistence note further clarifies its scope. The purpose is unambiguous and not just a restatement of the tool name.

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 phrase '手动触发' clearly implies this is for initiating a crawl on demand, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as relying on automatic crawls or using get_latest_news. The examples give concrete usage patterns, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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