web_crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it follows links organically and that external links are collected but not crawled, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential side effects like active requests to target systems, rate limits, or scope restrictions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 and well-structured: a two-sentence purpose statement followed by a bullet-like parameter list and a return summary. Every line adds value, and the front-loading of the main purpose ensures quick understanding.

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 covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It lacks edge-case details like robots.txt handling or resource limits, but given the complexity of a crawl tool, this is a minor gap and overall it is nearly complete.

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 0%, but the description provides clear inline explanations for all 5 parameters (url, max_depth, max_pages, include_external, timeout), including defaults and meaning. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds significant value beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Crawl') and resource ('web application'), and distinguishes it from wordlist brute-force by emphasizing organic link-following and discovery of endpoints, forms, and interesting paths. This differentiates it from sibling tools like gobuster_dir and ffuf_fuzz.

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 implies when to use the tool by contrasting it with wordlist brute-force ('misses'), suggesting use for organic discovery. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so the guidance is somewhat implicit rather than fully explicit.

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