run_crawl_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states that it runs a spider, omitting potential side effects such as making many network requests, optionally writing JSONL output, following pagination/detail links, or resource usage. This is a significant gap for such a stateful and potentially long-running operation.

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 that front-loads the main action ('Run a configurable silkworm spider') and tacks on a purpose clause. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with a self-explanatory name.

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?

Although a rich output schema exists (not shown here), the description is far too sparse for a tool with a complex nested blueprint configuration. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., extracted items, status), whether it writes files (output_jsonl_path), or how it handles pagination/follow links. The description is minimal for a tool of this complexity.

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% for the top-level parameters (variant and blueprint), and the description adds no explanation of these parameters. While the nested blueprint schema includes internal field descriptions, the tool description itself provides zero parameter guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('configurable silkworm spider'), and adds a clear use case ('validating a scraping plan'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like generate_spider_template by emphasizing 'without writing code' and from lower-level fetch/parse tools by focusing on the full spider execution.

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 phrase 'useful for validating a scraping plan' provides a clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the contrast with code generation is implied through 'without writing code'. This is strong but not fully explicit.

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