crawl

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: URL discovery then scraping, a hard cap via max_pages, BFS depth semantics, regex filtering, and the llm-tier meaning of prefer. It does not discuss rate limits, auth, domain scoping, or side effects, but what it states is concrete and accurate.

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 summary line plus a compact argument list is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool. Every line adds value, default behavior is noted for max_depth, and the most important distinction (llm deep-crawl) is inline rather than in prose.

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?

The description is complete enough to call the tool with all 7 parameters meaningfully configured, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. It would be stronger with a sentence on URL scope (e.g., same-domain only) and on what happens when include_paths and exclude_paths overlap.

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%, but the description documents every parameter with types/semantics: root, max_pages, css_selector, prefer values, include/exclude regex behavior, and max_depth default semantics. It even gives an exclude_paths regex example, fully compensating for the bare 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 opening line 'Multi-page crawl: discover URLs on root, then scrape each' names a concrete verb and resource and describes the two-phase behavior. The 'multi-page' framing separates it from siblings like scrape, which presumably handles a single page.

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 the use case (multi-page crawling, BFS vs flat harvest through max_depth) but never explicitly says when to choose crawl over scrape, map_site, or batch_scrape. It also gives no exclusion guidance such as 'for single-page use scrape instead.'

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