export_markdown

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 discloses the core action (crawl and export) and the return values (directory path and crawl summary). However, it omits behavioral details such as how the crawl handles page boundaries, link following, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving a moderate transparency gap.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function and return values, followed by a compact list of use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the essential return information and intended use cases. However, it does not address edge cases like handling external links, file naming specifics, or the impact of max_depth on results, and it does not reference sibling tools for alternative scenarios, making it complete but not exhaustive.

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 covers all three parameters (url, max_depth, output_dir) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the overall crawl-and-export behavior, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Crawl a website and export each page as a markdown file.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and also mentions the return values (export directory path and crawl summary), which distinguishes it from siblings like crawl_site or generate_sitemap that don't focus on markdown export.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use for content migration, offline analysis, or feeding pages into other tools.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like crawl_site or mention when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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