map_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful constraints — 'internal URLs' scoping, 'reachable from root' traversal semantics, and the 'hard cap' behavior of `limit` — but leaves significant traits undisclosed: auth requirements, rate limits, redirect handling, and whether the tool makes many network requests. Meaningful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 tightly structured — core purpose in the first sentence, usage guidance in the second, then a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns, internal scope) is front-loaded.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, when to use it, related tools, and all parameters with semantics. Minor gaps remain — how traversal handles redirects, depth limits, and protocol variants — but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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, and it does: `root` gets a format example, `include_pattern` gets its regex filter semantics explained, and `limit` is clarified as a 'Hard cap on returned URLs'. All three parameters receive meaning beyond the bare schema types, fully covering the parameters that the schema left undocumented.

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 first sentence is a specific verb+resource statement — 'Enumerate all internal URLs reachable from `root`' — which precisely defines the scope and distinguishes this from siblings like `crawl` (which fetches content) and `search` (which queries). The pairing note with `crawl`/`batch_scrape` further clarifies its role as a pre-scrape discovery step.

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?

'Use when the user wants to map a site's structure or find all pages before crawling' gives clear, actionable context, and naming `crawl` and `batch_scrape` as common companions helps an agent understand the workflow. However, it stops short of explicit exclusions — it never states 'use crawl instead when you need page content only,' so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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