flycrawl_map

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only/non-destructive behavior, the data sources queried (sitemaps, robots.txt, link graphs), API-key auth, cost of 1 credit per operation, JS-rendering behavior, and error semantics. It even discloses the return shape (URLs only, no content bodies).

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 labeled sections are front-loaded and scannable, and each line adds information rather than restating the schema. The 'under 2 seconds' performance claim is slightly promotional and not load-bearing.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, auth, cost, return content, and error behavior — everything an agent needs to decide to call it and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so url, limit, and search are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what 'search' filters against or how limit truncates), so the baseline 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 and resource: 'discover and list all reachable internal URLs and sitemap hierarchy on a domain.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with flycrawl_crawl, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('reconnaissance before targeted scraping') and names the alternative it is not (flycrawl_crawl, which returns content bodies). It does not address the other siblings (flycrawl_search, flycrawl_scrape, flycrawl_extract), so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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