firecrawl_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Fast way to discover site structure' and 'without extracting content', which gives some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently communicates key information without unnecessary details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or advanced behaviors, which are important for a mapping tool. However, it's adequate for a simple tool with good schema coverage, though more context would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (url and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as URL format constraints or limit implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Map all URLs on a website without extracting content' specifies the verb (map) and resource (URLs on a website). It distinguishes from sibling 'firecrawl_crawl' and 'firecrawl_scrape' by emphasizing 'without extracting content' and 'discover site structure', though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage context with 'Fast way to discover site structure', suggesting it's for structural discovery rather than content extraction. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'firecrawl_crawl' or 'firecrawl_scrape', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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