crawl_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral aspects. It clearly states the crawl runs in the background (async), saves to an internal database, and returns a crawl_id. This discloses the non-return nature and the need for polling. While it doesn't detail all edge cases, it is transparent enough for a start-crawl operation.

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 extremely concise with three short paragraphs: one for the main action, one for args, one for returns. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. The structure (Args, Returns) is clear and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and 3 parameters, the description adequately covers the primary behavior, return value, and how to check progress via a sibling tool. It lacks details on error handling or cancellation, but for a standard crawl-initiation tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that url is the target, config_file is an optional path to limit crawls, and label is an optional identifier. This adds context beyond the raw schema, especially the config_file usage tip.

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 tool starts a background Screaming Frog crawl that saves to an internal database. It specifies the verb 'start' and the resource 'site crawl', distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like crawl_status (monitoring) and delete_crawl (destructive).

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 explains that the crawl runs in the background and that crawl_status should be used to poll progress. It also gives guidance on using config_file to limit URLs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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