cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses background execution, pacing at the host's pace, retention for `days`, that reads/recipe runs with cached=true use only the copy, and that archive source makes no request to the site. It does not describe failure handling or what happens if a job is re-started.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the scenario and the core behavior, with each clause carrying parameter or behavioral meaning. No filler.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema job-control tool, this covers purpose, mode selection, retention, and lifecycle actions. The omission of max_pages semantics and any job-failure/status-return detail are the only remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains source values (archive/live/auto), the meaning of days (copy retention), filter (narrows the urls), and action (status/stop). Only max_pages and the url parameter are left without any semantic explanation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('download every page once into Scout's copy') and the scenario it serves ('pulling a lot from one site'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name or differentiate itself against any of the many sibling tools.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger ('for pulling a lot from one site') and describes the source selection trade-off (archive = no request to the site, auto = live with archive fallback). It never names an alternative sibling tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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