keiro_crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool 'Handles JavaScript-rendered pages' and 'Returns clean, structured text,' providing useful behavioral insight. Yet it omits details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior on non-HTML content, leaving transparency incomplete.

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 three tightly written sentences, each adding essential information: the core function, the output nature, and a key capability. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose, return format, and JavaScript handling. The lack of an output schema is offset by the clear statement of 'clean, structured text.' Minor gaps remain regarding failure modes or limitations, but the description is sufficiently complete for typical crawling use.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (url) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic 'any web page,' so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Extract and parse content from any web page.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like keiro_search and keiro_research, which likely handle broader search or research tasks. Mention of JavaScript rendering further clarifies its unique capability.

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 usage: use when you need to extract content from a specific web page. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives from the sibling set, so the guidance is limited to inference.

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