alterlab_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool is lightweight, non-scraping, non-rendering, costs $0.001 per call, and returns a flat list with source and depth. It also reveals features like search ranking, metadata fetching, and sitemap path handling, providing comprehensive transparency.

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 a single paragraph of eight sentences, packed with information. It front-loads the primary purpose and then details options. While not overly verbose, it could be more structured (e.g., bullets) for easier scanning. Nonetheless, every sentence adds value, earning a 4.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the tool's behavior, output format ('Returns a flat list of URLs with source and depth'), and parameter usage. It also covers edge cases like non-standard sitemap paths and suggests usage in conjunction with other tools. This makes it complete for an AI agent's decision-making.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining usage patterns for key parameters: 'Use include_patterns/exclude_patterns to scope discovery', 'Use search to rank URLs', 'Use include_metadata=true to also fetch page titles', and 'Use sitemap_path to specify a non-standard sitemap location.' This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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: 'Discover all URLs on a website, get a sitemap, or find specific pages within a large site.' It uses specific verbs and describes the resource (URLs on a site) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like alterlab_crawl and alterlab_batch by advising to use this tool before them.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this before alterlab_crawl or alterlab_batch to identify which pages to scrape.' It also clarifies what it does not do: 'no content scraping, no JS rendering.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context and alternatives are clear, earning a 4.

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