Обход сайта

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds operational traits they cannot express: caching makes repeat crawls cheap, a crawl takes tens of transitions, and the MCP client timeout should be ≥900s. That is exactly the kind of cost/latency disclosure an agent needs before committing.

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 КОГДА/ЧТО/НЕ structure front-loads purpose, then output shape and cost, then exclusions. Every line is load-bearing with no filler, despite covering a fairly complex tool.

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?

Output-schema existence relieves it of return-value detail, and it adds timeout/caching context and alternatives. The remaining gap is the unexplained max_chars, article_only and pattern semantics, which leaves a 6-param tool partially under-specified.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only covers url (implied), max_depth and max_pages ('depth ≤ max_depth, всего ≤ max_pages') plus a passing nod to pattern. max_chars and article_only are never explained, leaving half the parameters 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 'ЧТО' line names the resource (страницы сайта) and the mechanism (BFS по внутренним ссылкам), explicitly scoping it to a whole site rather than one page. An agent can distinguish it from fetch_page and map_site from the text alone.

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 'КОГДА' and 'НЕ' sections give explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use with named alternatives: URL-only needs → map_site/sitemap, huge site → sitemap + pattern then crawl a section, single page → fetch_page. This is textbook routing guidance.

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