search_wayback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions passive, public-source collection and the keyless CDX API, indicating non-destructive behavior. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or output format, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function. It is efficient but the final phrase 'Passive, public-source collection' slightly repeats earlier information. Overall, it earns its length.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: domain-based listing, passive collection, and pairing with scrape_url. However, it omits details on output format (beyond json_output) and any pagination or size limits, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 50% (only json_output has a description). The description adds meaning by implying target is a domain, but it does not explicitly describe the target parameter's format or constraints. The json_output parameter is already explained in the schema, so no addition there.

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 it lists URLs archived under a domain in the Internet Archive via the keyless CDX API. It specifies the tool's passive nature and use case: recovering deleted, forgotten, or historical pages. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools that target other sources.

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 explicitly pairs this tool with scrape_url to fetch recovered pages, providing a clear workflow. It also states authorized use only. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternative sibling tools, limiting full usage guidance.

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