crawl

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it states the traversal algorithm, hard limits, output format via the '--- URL:' delimiter, and caching behavior. It does not disclose side effects or permission needs, but as a crawling operation this is a substantive and useful transparency profile.

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 compact and information-dense: four short clauses, each adding a distinct fact about traversal, limits, output, or caching. It is front-loaded with the core operation and contains no redundant phrasing.

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 six parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no mention of the key filtering options article_only, max_chars, or pattern, the description is not fully sufficient for reliable invocation. An agent can use defaults but cannot reason about whether article-only extraction is expected or how content truncation works.

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 explain parameter meanings. It directly explains max_depth and max_pages, and implicitly maps url to the start page. But it leaves pattern, max_chars, and especially article_only unexplained, even though article_only defaults to true and can significantly alter fetched content.

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 names a specific operation, 'BFS-обход сайта' (BFS crawl of a site), and specifies the resource scope: start page plus internal links. It distinguishes itself from single-page fetches and sitemap tools by mentioning depth limits, page limits, and a Firecrawl crawling pattern.

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 usage: crawl a site starting from one URL following internal links, with cheap repeated crawls due to caching. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings like fetch_page, extract_links, or map_site, and gives no exclusion criteria.

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