Crawl Site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the DFS traversal strategy, which is useful, but says nothing about rate limiting, scope restrictions, long-running behavior against the 120s default timeout, or authentication requirements despite a storage_state parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a nine-parameter crawling tool rather than reflecting purposeful conciseness.

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 a complex, potentially long-running, resource-intensive crawler with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. It omits operational limits, output characteristics, and safety considerations an agent needs before invoking it.

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%, with every parameter (timeout, max_depth, max_pages, dedup_mode, remove_links, output_format, storage_state, include_subdomains) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Crawl) and resource (an entire website) along with the starting point (seed URL) and traversal strategy (DFS). The word 'entire' implies a multi-page operation distinct from the sibling 'crawl', but the differentiation from 'crawl' and 'search' is never made explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the 'crawl' or 'search' siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites such as robots.txt compliance, politeness, or when authenticated crawling is warranted. Usage must be entirely inferred from the phrase 'entire website'.

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