tools_waybackurls

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions execution and fetching from Wayback Machine but omits details on side effects (e.g., network activity, rate limits), output format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise with a clear purpose lead-in, but the arg list is sparse and lacks structure. It could benefit from separating argument descriptions more clearly, but overall it's not verbose.

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 tool executes an external command with an output schema, the description should cover prerequisites, expected behavior, and potential errors. It fails to provide sufficient context for reliable agent use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value: 'domain: Target domain' essentially repeats the schema title, and 'additional_args: Extra arguments' is vague. No format, examples, or constraints are provided.

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 that the tool executes waybackurls to fetch URLs from the Wayback Machine, specifying the verb and resource. While it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the specific tool and data source, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like tools_assetfinder.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tools_amass or tools_subfinder. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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