scout_crawl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the mutation profile ('Navigation-only — safe in read-only mode'), a side effect (records into coverage memory), and the return contents. It does not cover rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the crawl runs synchronously, which would be useful but are not critical for safe invocation.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: capability and outcome are front-loaded, safety follows, then usage strategy. Every clause earns its place, and the key differentiator ('Use this FIRST') is placed at the end as actionable guidance.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the per-route health summary fields. Combined with full schema descriptions for both parameters and explicit usage guidance, almost everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present. Minor omissions: behavior when no unvisited routes exist and any timing/asynchronicity expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds mild conceptual context (e.g., default behavior of visiting unvisited routes, purpose of recording into coverage memory), but does not substantially extend beyond the schema's own parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Engine-side route sweep... visits each path'), enumerates concrete outcomes (records states into coverage memory, returns per-route health summary with HTTP status, element count, oracle violations, dead-ends, auth-redirects). It differentiates from siblings like scout_scan and scout_navigate by being a broad one-call sweep versus interactive exploration.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use this FIRST for broad coverage; explore interactively only where it flags problems or where journeys matter.' This gives both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use, with the alternative approach (interactive exploration) implied, so an agent can sequence its actions correctly.

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