webclaw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the algorithm (breadth-first) and constraints (depth/page limits), but omits critical operational details: that it makes external HTTP requests, potential rate-limiting concerns, concurrency behavior implications, and what data structure it returns.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the operation ('Crawl a website') and logically flows from seed URL through traversal method to constraints.

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's complexity (6 parameters, network I/O, potentially long-running) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits important context. It fails to describe return values, error conditions, or external side effects that an agent would need to know.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'configurable depth and page limit' and 'seed URL', which reference parameters, but adds no additional semantic context, syntax guidance, or usage patterns beyond what the schema already documents.

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 provides a clear specific verb ('Crawl') and resource ('website'), and explains the core mechanism ('following links breadth-first'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scrape' or 'map' that might overlap in functionality.

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 offers no guidance on when to use 'crawl' versus siblings such as 'scrape', 'extract', or 'map'. There are no exclusion criteria or stated prerequisites for selection.

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