novada_map

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

Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: fallback mechanism from sitemap to BFS crawl, output format (URL list only), and limitation on JavaScript SPAs with a flag. Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, consistent with description.

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 with a single paragraph and bullet points, no redundant text. Structure is clear: usage context, best for, not for, and a note.

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?

Covers purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, and limitations. No output schema, but description mentions output format. Could add more on return structure or error handling, but sufficient for a URL-discovery tool.

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 low (20%), and the description does not explain individual parameters like search, limit, or include_subdomains in detail. However, the overall purpose and behavior context somewhat compensate, and simple parameters like url and limit are self-explanatory.

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: to discover URLs on a site using sitemap or BFS crawl, returning only a URL list. It distinguishes itself from siblings like novada_extract and novada_crawl.

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?

Explicit 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections provide clear guidance on when to use (site structure discovery, finding correct subpage) and when not to (reading page content), with alternatives mentioned.

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