crawl_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that it visits internal links, runs detectors, checks links and performance, and takes 30-120 seconds. It doesn't mention session state changes, but the information is adequate for understanding behavior.

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 with front-loaded purpose and subsequent details. Each sentence adds value, though the arg list could be more tightly integrated. Still, no unnecessary verbosity.

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 (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics adequately for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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 explains max_pages as 'Maximum number of pages to visit (default 20)', adding meaning beyond the schema's default value. This fully informs the agent about the parameter.

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 crawls the entire site, visits all internal links, runs detectors, and checks links and performance. It distinguishes from siblings like check_links and check_performance which focus on specific aspects.

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 positions it as the most thorough scan, implying use for comprehensive testing. It mentions time duration but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like the more targeted sibling tools.

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