crawl_site

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

Adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: the crawl runs in the background and the call returns immediately with a job ID, implying the actual work happens asynchronously. This helps the agent know to poll get_job_status later. It also clarifies that the site must already be configured, setting a prerequisite not visible from annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return behavior. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains the start action, background execution, and the immediate return of a job ID. It could mention how to monitor progress, but the existence of a get_job_status sibling makes that omission minor.

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 both site_key and incremental are already fully documented. The description does not add any additional meaning for these parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear action: start a background crawl for a configured site, and explicitly notes it returns a job ID immediately. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_crawl or get_job_status, which operate on existing crawls.

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 when to use it—when you want to kick off a crawl of a configured site—but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusion conditions. An agent must infer that cancel_crawl or diff_crawl serve different purposes, so some routing burden remains on the agent.

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