crawl_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the DFS traversal strategy. It does not disclose potential impacts (e.g., rate limits, resource consumption), authentication requirements, the meaning of 'entire website' (same-domain vs. subdomains), or what the output will look like. This is insufficient for a crawler that can visit many pages.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key strategy. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one line. It does not explain what the return value looks like, any limits or side effects, or how the parameters relate to the crawling process. For a complex tool like this, the description is notably incomplete.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, covering 100% of the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies — it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 ('crawl'), a concrete resource ('entire website'), and a strategy ('DFS'), which clearly states what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool named 'crawl', leaving ambiguity about how they differ.

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 the tool is for crawling entire websites via DFS, giving some context. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the 'crawl' or 'search' sibling tools, and it offers no exclusions or alternative guidance. The presence of a sibling named 'crawl' makes this gap more noticeable.

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