yd_webmaster_recrawl_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full behavioral burden. It only says 'get status' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or what the response shape looks like. For a retrieval tool, this is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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, well-formed sentence that efficiently states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the key information ('Yandex Webmaster: get status...') and contains no extraneous text.

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?

With no output schema, the description should compensate by describing the return value, but it does not mention what status information is provided (e.g., status code, timestamp, progress). The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and clear references (e.g., 'from yd_webmaster_hosts_get'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable per rubric baseline.

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 verb 'get status' and the resource 'specific recrawl task'. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like yd_webmaster_recrawl_submit (submits) and yd_webmaster_recrawl_list (lists tasks), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 after obtaining a task ID from yd_webmaster_recrawl_submit, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like yd_webmaster_recrawl_list for listing tasks or yd_webmaster_recrawl_quota for quota info. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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