crawl_site

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: strict request/error/token budgets and per-host rate limiting. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to mention important behaviors like conforming to robots.txt, handling authentication, or how budgets are enforced. Additional context is missing.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 10 words), which is efficient but underserves a tool with 17 parameters. It front-loads the core action and constraints but lacks the depth that multiple sentences could provide for key details.

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 (17 parameters, 1 required, no schema descriptions, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, effects of parameters, or error scenarios, leaving the agent to guess many operational details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions budgets and rate limiting, which are not explicit parameter names. None of the 17 parameters (e.g., max_pages, delay_ms, include_pattern) are described or linked to the narrative, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 action ('Crawl a site') and adds context about budgets and rate limiting. It implies differentiation from sibling tools like 'crawl_url' which likely handles single URLs, but does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 implied usage for controlled crawling with budgets, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'crawl_url' for single pages, 'map_site' for structure). No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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