export_site_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does convey useful traits: this performs a site-wide crawl (implied network cost and latency, bounded by max), writes a file to disk (a side effect), and returns the path. It does not mention whether an existing file is overwritten, permission requirements, or how failures during the audit are surfaced.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the rest spent enumerating the report contents. The long parenthetical list is dense but each item is informative for judging the output; slightly overloaded for a single sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing both the artifact (PDF sections) and the return value (file path). Report contents and the primary return are covered; only failure/overwrite behavior is absent.

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 every parameter (url, max, path, details) is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds only indirect context — the details flag maps to the 'full per-page details section' and the table ordering is 'worst-first' — without explaining parameter syntax beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource — run a site-wide audit and write a multi-page PDF report — and enumerates the report's contents, so the agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling export_audit_pdf, whose name implies a very similar operation.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The presence of a closely named sibling (export_audit_pdf) makes the missing differentiation a real gap — the agent must open both schemas to decide which export tool to call.

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