crawl_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses possible state values and explains the 'interrupted' state in detail, including that results remain readable. This adds meaningful behavioral insight beyond a basic status check, though error behavior is not covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a necessary list of state values and a clarifying note. No redundant wording.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema the description leaves the return format ambiguous ('state and progress' but no structure). It also does not address invalid job IDs, though the state enumeration is a helpful addition.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, job_id, with no description beyond the name. The tool description does not mention job_id or its provenance (e.g., returned by start_crawl), leaving parameter semantics under-specified despite 0% schema coverage.

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 'Report a crawl's state and progress.' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_crawl and crawl_results, which focus on initiating and fetching results.

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 context about the meaning of states, especially 'interrupted,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like crawl_results or cancel_crawl. Usage is implied but not explicitly articulated.

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