List saved crawls

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the API-callable nature of saved crawls, the per-item `scope` structure, and the behavioral caveat that executor=ai crawls are not reusable for fresh questions. It does not discuss result ordering or pagination 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the routing advice, and each sentence carries information. It is dense with parenthetical detail, but nothing is filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the shape of each returned crawl and its scope fields, plus the correct follow-up tool. The only gaps are result count/ordering and whether limit truncates silently, which are minor for a read-only list tool.

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?

There is a single parameter (limit) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics; the description never mentions limit and adds nothing parameter-level. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('List the crawls the user SAVED for re-running') and immediately characterizes what a saved crawl contains (scope with seed_url, rank_cap, include_paths, extract_mode, executor). It is unambiguously distinguishable from sibling write tools like writ_update_saved_crawl or writ_run_saved_crawl.

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?

Explicitly routes between alternatives: use writ_run_saved_crawl(max_age=…) when the scope matches, otherwise start writ_crawl_site(rank_cap=N). It even names the exclusion case (different page, or executor=ai) that disqualifies a saved crawl as a shortcut, which is unusually precise guidance.

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