map_site

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the high-level action, omitting details such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or whether it respects robots.txt. The output schema exists but the description provides no behavioral context.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. However, it is too brief and could have included essential details without significant bloat, so it is not maximally efficient.

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 (mapping site URLs) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify scope (e.g., breadth/depth limits), required permissions, or relation to sibling tools like 'crawl'. The output schema covers return values, but other contextual gaps remain.

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% and the tool has 2 parameters (url, kwargs). The description only implies that 'url' is the seed URL via the phrase 'starting from a seed URL', but does not explain 'kwargs' at all. This leaves agents guessing about the second parameter.

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 specifies a clear action ('Map') and resource ('a site's discoverable URLs'), with context ('starting from a seed URL'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'crawl', which performs similar functionality. Still, the verb+resource combination is distinct enough for basic purpose.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crawl' or 'extract'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g., domain availability).

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