Trigger App Crawl

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true (side effects) and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns by detailing that the crawl populates a knowledge graph asynchronously. It adds critical behavioral context: localhost support via automatic tunneling, long-running nature, and that the return value is execution status (not pass/fail). No contradictions with 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 well-structured with clear sections (LOCALHOST SUPPORT, WHEN TO USE, SCOPE) and front-loads the primary purpose. It is efficient but slightly verbose in parameter descriptions (e.g., repeating credential guidance). Still, every section serves a purpose and avoids redundancy.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics. It explains what the tool returns (executionId+status+outcome) and addresses long-running behavior. No major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining localhost handling for 'url', auto-detection for 'projectUuid' and 'repoName', and important caveats for 'username' and 'password' (e.g., 'do NOT invent credentials'). It also clarifies optional overrides for environment and credential. This extra context raises the score to 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 states the tool triggers a browser-agent crawl to build a project's knowledge graph. It uses a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('crawl'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'check_app_in_browser' by identifying the appropriate use case (post-feature vs. per-change verification).

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 explicit guidance on when to use (after significant features, new environments, onboarding) and when not to use (per-change verification, recommending check_app_in_browser instead). It also clarifies scope (one crawl per call) and expected duration (minutes to tens of minutes), leaving no ambiguity.

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