trigger_crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains defaults, parameter effects, and return fields including failed_platforms. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting files during save), authentication requirements, or rate limits, which would improve transparency for a tool that may have persistent effects.

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 with sections (args, returns, examples) and uses bullets for clarity. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While comprehensive, it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately explains return values. It covers core functionality, default behaviors, and error reporting. Missing details like authentication or configuration file paths are acceptable for a mechanism description, but the tool is contextualized within the sibling set.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter in detail: platforms list with name mapping, save_to_local default False, include_url default False, and provides real-world examples. This adds significant value beyond the raw JSON 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 clearly states the tool triggers a crawl task manually, with optional persistence. It specifies the resource (crawl task) and actions (trigger, optionally save). It distinguishes from sibling analysis tools by being the only one that initiates data collection.

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 provides examples for different use cases (specified platforms, with save, default platforms) and explains default behavior. It mentions that failed platforms are returned. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, though sibling tools are a different category.

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