crawl_site

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by revealing the crawl runs in background and saves to an internal database. This gives behavioral insight beyond the annotations, but lacks specifics on resource consumption or error handling.

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 well-structured with a summary line, Args block, and Returns block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose but all sentences add value; no redundancy. Could be trimmed slightly but remains 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 complexity (3 params, 1 required) and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description explains the return value and background nature. It covers essential usage for starting a crawl and linking to crawl_status. Missing error or prerequisite details, but sufficient for a straightforward start-crawl operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds full meaning: url is explained with an example, config_file includes guidance on limiting URLs, and label is given a usage example. This compensates completely for the bare schema, making parameters self-explanatory.

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 'Start a background...crawl', the resource 'Screaming Frog crawl', and the storage destination 'SF's internal database'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crawl_status (polling) and delete_crawl (deletion) by specifying the background execution and return of a crawl_id.

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 guidance on using crawl_status to poll progress and explains the optional config_file and label parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide comparative guidance against siblings like read_crawl_data or aggregate_crawl_data, though the background execution hint is useful.

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