AIMLPM/markcrawl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'read-only operation on local files' and 'no network requests are made,' addressing safety and execution context. It also clarifies that it returns a summary of 'every page in the crawl index.' Minor gap: doesn't mention error handling (e.g., file not found) or performance with large files.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded key details (URLs, titles, word counts in first sentence). Zero waste: each sentence addresses functionality, return value, usage timing, data interpretation (word counts), safety characteristics, and parameter details. The Args section efficiently documents the single parameter.

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 has an output schema (so return values needn't be detailed) and only one optional parameter, the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, workflow context, safety constraints, and parameter semantics—sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without external documentation.

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 description coverage is 0% (parameter lacks description field), but the description fully compensates by documenting: 'Full path to the pages.jsonl file' and the default behavior 'If empty, defaults to <WEBCRAWLER_OUTPUT_DIR>/pages.jsonl.' This provides complete semantic meaning where the schema fails to do so.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb (List), resource (pages from a previous crawl), and return details (URLs, titles, word counts). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like crawl_site (emphasizes 'previous crawl' vs. new crawl) and read_page/search_pages (emphasizes 'overview' vs. specific content retrieval).

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use this to get an overview of available content before searching or reading specific pages.' This establishes when to use the tool (before search/read operations) and implicitly references sibling alternatives (search_pages, read_page).

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