Discover JavaScript endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds real context beyond that: only a 'bounded' set of scripts is fetched, only 'same-scope' scripts are followed, and 'literal' references imply static inspection rather than runtime execution. It stops short of stating limits, auth needs, or rate 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the target and packs scope, bounding, and extraction type without any filler. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the scope/bounding constraints, leaving only minor gaps such as whether JavaScript is executed and any authentication prerequisites for the authorized target.

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 0%, so the schema documents neither 'url' nor 'max_scripts'. The description partially compensates by indicating the url is a single authorized page/script and that the script set is bounded, which hints at what max_scripts controls. It gives no syntax, defaults, or ceiling details, so the gap is only partly filled.

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 gives a specific verb (inspect) and resource (a page or script plus same-scope scripts) scoped to extracting 'literal URL and path references.' That distinguishes it from siblings like web_crawler or gau_url_discovery, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one authorized page or script' — it signals a single-target, in-scope inspection — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as source_map_discovery or graphql_endpoint_discovery that also surface endpoints.

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