crawl_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Check the status' without revealing whether the operation is purely read-only, if it has side effects, or what errors may occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise (two lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant with the schema but does not waste many words. It could be further compressed by removing the 'Args' line since it restates the parameter.

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?

Despite low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects), the description omits crucial details. With an output schema indicated but not described, the tool's return format is unknown. An agent would not know whether to expect a status string, progress percentage, or error details. No error handling or edge cases are mentioned.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal context: 'The crawl_id returned by crawl_site', which clarifies the parameter's origin and format. However, it does not explain required constraints (e.g., must be a valid UUID) or provide examples.

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 uses the verb 'Check' and resource 'status of a running or completed crawl', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'crawl_site' (starts a crawl) and 'delete_crawl' (deletes). However, it does not elaborate on what status entails (e.g., progress, completion, errors).

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 usage after calling 'crawl_site' by referencing the crawl_id returned by that tool. It provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'list_crawls' or 'read_crawl_data'), nor does it mention when not to use it.

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