crawl_documentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool crawls a site and saves an index, and implies that refresh controls rebuilding. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as network load, duration, or whether the old index is destroyed on refresh.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise usage hint. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition.

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's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains what the tool does and a key usage parameter. It could mention that the resulting index is used by sibling search tools, but that is implied by the name and sibling context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the refresh parameter's behavior ('reuse an existing index'), which goes beyond the schema's simple description. The maxPages parameter is left to the schema, but the overall benefit justifies a 4.

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 action (crawl), the resource (configured documentation site), and the outcome (save a local searchable index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crawler_status, search_documentation, and get_documentation_page, which perform different functions.

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 a specific usage hint: 'Use refresh=false to reuse an existing index.' This gives clear context for when to use the parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the purpose inherently separates it from siblings.

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