Crawl a website starting from a seed URL

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the BFS algorithm, depth/page limits, return types, and the caching side effect. However, it omits important behaviors such as whether robots.txt is respected by default (relevant to ignoreRobots) and does not mention error handling or output structure.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the main action and return information without redundancy. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and its relationship to web_crawl_get_page.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It gives a high-level overview but omits key details such as the exact return format, robots.txt policy, and parameter behaviors for contentDepth and ignoreRobots, making it insufficient for reliable autonomous invocation.

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 63%, but the description only partially compensates for undocumented parameters. It clarifies startUrl as the seed, but contentDepth and ignoreRobots are not explained anywhere, leaving the agent to guess their semantics. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 identifies the tool as a BFS crawler starting from a seed URL with depth/page limits, returning titles, link structures, and excerpts. It also mentions caching full markdown for web_crawl_get_page, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_scrape and web_check.

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 intended use is implied by the BFS crawl description and the caching note for web_crawl_get_page, suggesting a two-step workflow. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is only partial.

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