Crawl Course

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it inventories pages and downloads but does not specify that it is read-only, whether it recursively traverses, or any other traits like auth requirements or potential performance impact.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, earning its place.

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 four parameters, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the minimal description is insufficient. It lacks details on recursive behavior, limits, and output format, which the output schema alone may not fully convey for selection.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions pages and downloadable resources, which relates to include_downloads, but fails to explain max_depth, max_pages, or course_url format. Two of four parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 'Inventory pages and downloadable resources inside a Ninova course tree' uses a specific verb (inventory) and clearly identifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_page and download_resource by indicating a broader scope (crawling the whole tree).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_course_sections or get_course_lesson_files. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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