Crawl a site's design system

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and no contradiction exists. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: breadth-first traversal, same-origin boundary, optional file output side effects, and per-page JSON screenshots. It does not, however, mention external site-loading costs, overwrite behavior, or nondeterminism in more detail.

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?

Two dense, information-heavy sentences with no filler. The primary crawl-and-merge purpose is front-loaded, followed by a precise description of artifacts written when outputDir is provided.

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 and the fully covered schema, the description conveys the essential behavior, output artifacts, and site-wide scope adequately. The main gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance against siblings and lack of clarity about behavior when outputDir is omitted.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 18 parameters. The tool description adds no substantive parameter semantics beyond 'start URL' and 'outputDir', and those are already well covered in the schema property descriptions.

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 names a specific action and resource: crawl same-origin pages breadth-first from a start URL and merge per-page design analysis into a site-wide design system. It lists concrete outputs (colors, fonts, CSS variables, page inventory, section outlines, SITE.md), making the tool's purpose highly distinguishable from siblings like analyze_site or analyze_html.

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 implies when to use it: when a multi-page, site-wide design-system analysis is needed, with same-origin crawling and optional on-disk outputs. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer a sibling tool such as analyze_site for a single page or deep analysis, nor does it warn against using it in one-page scenarios.

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