crawl

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: single long blocking call, MCP progress notifications, bounded max pages (default 50, hard cap 1000). Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden of transparency.

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 concise yet packed with essential information. It is front-loaded with purpose, followed by warnings and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (blocking crawl, progress notifications, resource-heavy), the description adequately covers the blocking nature, bounds, progress reporting, and alternative approach. The return format is stated as 'Markdown record per page as JSON Lines', which is sufficient. Minor gaps in error handling and rate limiting are acceptable for this context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description reinforces the maxPages cap and default but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('crawl'), resource ('whole site'), and outcome ('return one Markdown record per page as JSON Lines'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'map' and 'scrape' by suggesting an alternative approach for large sites.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (crawl entire site) and when-not-to ('For a large site prefer map to list URLs, then scrape each URL'). It also warns about the blocking nature and gives an alternative strategy.

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