crawl_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It transparently discloses key behaviors: browser-based crawling, BFS depth traversal, link discovery from the start page, and explicitly excludes fast extraction auto-degradation and LLM post-processing. This goes beyond the schema, giving a clear behavioral profile, though it could mention rate limits or robots.txt compliance.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences. The core action is front-loaded, and the sibling comparisons are efficiently packed. It is slightly dense, but every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately sized.

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 has moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema present). The description covers purpose, usage scenario, behavioral traits, and exclusions. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect, though minor edge-case behaviors (e.g., error handling) are unspecified.

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 provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states; it only implicitly mentions depth and page limits, which are already documented.

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 a specific action ('recursively crawl site pages') and identifies the resource (site pages). It explicitly distinguishes itself from crawl_batch (which doesn't discover links from the starting page) and crawl_single/crawl_batch (which use fast extraction and support LLM post-processing), making its unique role unambiguous.

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?

It provides an explicit usage scenario: '适用于只有一个网站入口、希望沿站内链接抓取若干页面的场景' (suitable for a single entry point and wanting to crawl pages via internal links). It also contrasts with sibling tools, clarifying when not to use it and what alternatives exist.

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