map_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that limit is a hard cap and that include_pattern filters returned URLs, but it does not mention side effects, cost, redirect handling, or whether the enumeration is read-only (only implied by 'enumerate'). This is adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation 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 a compact docstring with a one-line summary followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool is simple, an output schema exists, and all parameters are clearly documented. Minor gaps remain, such as what qualifies as 'internal' and whether redirects are followed, but these are not critical given the output schema and straightforward purpose.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: root with an example, include_pattern as an optional regex with matching behavior, and limit as a hard cap. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb ('Enumerate') and a specific resource ('all internal URLs reachable from root'), which makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinct from content-oriented siblings like scrape or extract. Even without naming sibling tools, the 'enumerate URLs' resource is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 intended use case is apparent from the action: an agent should call this when it needs a list of internal URLs reachable from a given root. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to the similar sibling 'crawl', so it lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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