map

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it returns internal/external link lists and counts, and it honors depth/limit parameters. However, 'Returns lists of ... external links' is slightly imprecise because includeExternalLinks defaults to false, so the tool only collects external links when explicitly enabled.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states what it does, the second says when it is useful, and the third describes output and parameter behavior. The key purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough high-level orientation for an agent to select and invoke it. It does not mention SPA handling or subdomain options, but those are fully described in the input schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description only reinforces depth and limit, which adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Discover all reachable URLs under a given site.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing the tool as pre-crawl reconnaissance and as a way to find sub-pages to scrape, which separates it from crawl/scrape tools.

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?

Gives two concrete use contexts: understanding a domain's structure before crawling, and finding sub-pages an agent should scrape. This makes when-to-use fairly clear, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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