map_site

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

The description discloses key behavioral constraints: it is limited to same-domain links, starts from the start page, and does not read page content. However, because annotations are absent, it leaves other relevant behaviors uncovered, such as network limits, failure modes, or whether any page content/session data is required.

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 short, scannable, and front-loaded with the primary purpose, before adding the important constraints and the Firecrawl pattern reference. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

There is an output schema, so return-value description is not strictly required. Still, the description omits meaningful guidance on parameter behavior and when this tool is preferable to crawl or sitemap, so the agent can make a basic call but cannot confidently choose between this and siblings.

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 the parameters, but it only indirectly hints at the URL and the pattern concept through 'Firecrawl map'. The max_links parameter is not explained at all, and the pattern parameter is not clearly tied to its behavior.

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 defines a concrete operation: enumerate same-domain links reachable from the start page, explicitly without reading content. It also identifies the behavior as the Firecrawl map pattern, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like crawl, sitemap, and extract_links.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need a lightweight site map of links only, not content. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are named even though several closely related tools exist in the sibling list.

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