crawl_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by describing what the tool returns (aggregated statistics, page classification, duplicate detection, etc.) and mentions respecting crawl limits and delays. However, it doesn't specify error handling, timeout behavior, or what happens when limits are exceeded.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what it does, the second lists returns, and the third provides usage context. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-page crawling with analysis), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return values and use case. However, it could be more complete by detailing output structure or error scenarios, though the listed returns provide solid context.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't compensate for gaps because there are none in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('crawl multiple pages', 'discovers internal links', 'analyzes each page') and distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_page (single page) or analyze_sitemap (structured sitemap). It explicitly mentions comprehensive site audits as the primary use case.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('for comprehensive site audits') and mentions respecting crawl limits and delays as operational constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this versus alternatives like check_urls or sample_pages, though the comprehensive nature is implied.

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