get_crawl_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions the shallow crawl and returned statistics. It does not disclose potential side effects like network requests to the target site, rate limits, or any mutation risks, though the tool appears read-only. The description adds the 'shallow' behavioral trait, but more detail would be needed for a non-annotated tool.

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 sentences, the first directly states the tool's function and outputs, and the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description explains the high-level return values and health-check use case, which is sufficient for a relatively simple tool without an output schema. It covers purpose, usage, and resource scope, though it could detail error handling or exact output format more, but the essentials are present.

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 already documents all three parameters (url, max_depth, rows_limit). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond hinting at shallowness, which is already captured by max_depth's 'Shallow crawl depth'. Baseline 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 runs a quick, shallow crawl and returns high-level statistics such as status code distribution, response times, and error counts. This specific verb+resource+output distinguishes it from siblings like crawl_site or crawl_single_page, which imply more comprehensive crawling.

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 explicitly positions the tool as 'best for fast site health checks before running a full crawl,' giving clear usage context. It implies a complement to full crawls but does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the full-crawl distinction.

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