webclaw

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by specifying it checks both 'robots.txt' and 'sitemap.xml'. However, missing critical behavioral details: whether it follows sitemap index files, rate limiting, output format, or error handling when sitemaps are absent.

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?

Extremely efficient at 9 words. Front-loaded with the action 'Discover URLs' and immediately specifies the source mechanism. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or 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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter discovery tool. The description covers the core function and specific data sources. Minor gap: does not describe the return value (list of URLs), though this is somewhat implied by 'Discover URLs'.

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 has 100% description coverage with the 'url' parameter well-documented as 'Base URL to discover sitemaps from'. The description does not add additional semantics about the parameter (e.g., protocol requirements, trailing slashes), warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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?

Specific verb 'Discover' with clear resource 'URLs' and distinct mechanism 'sitemaps (robots.txt + sitemap.xml)'. This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'crawl' or 'scrape' by specifying it extracts URLs from sitemap files rather than page content.

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?

Implies usage through the specific mechanism mentioned (sitemaps), suggesting use when architectural URL discovery is needed. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over 'crawl' or 'search' siblings, or prerequisites like requiring valid sitemap files.

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