Карта сайта

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it does not read page content, it stays on the same domain, and it caps results at max_links, plus a relative cost hint versus sitemap ('дешевле'). No return format is described, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three labelled lines, front-loaded with the goal, then the mechanism, then the exclusions. No filler sentences; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a read-only mapping tool with rich annotations, the WHEN/WHAT/NOT triad plus the sibling routing makes the definition complete for correct invocation.

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 the parameter burden. It does explain pattern ('фильтр по URL') and max_links ('до max_links'), but url is only implied and there is no syntax guidance for pattern (regex vs substring) or what the cap default means. Partial compensation for a 0% coverage schema.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource: 'ссылки того же домена со стартовой страницы (до max_links)', and the КОГДА line frames the goal ('понять структуру сайта... без чтения содержимого'). It is immediately distinguishable from crawl, sitemap and fetch_page.

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?

Explicit WHEN/WHAT/NOT structure names the alternatives by tool name and the condition that selects each: 'нужны тексты → crawl; есть sitemap.xml → sitemap (полнее и дешевле); одна страница → fetch_page.' Nothing is left to inference.

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