get_crawl_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'issues and errors' entail (e.g., types, severity). This leaves gaps for a tool that likely returns diagnostic data.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in a tool definition.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage and behavioral context, making it just sufficient for a simple read operation.

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%, with one parameter 'site_url' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'site_url' should be (e.g., format, domain), leaving the parameter semantics unclear and failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Get crawl issues and errors for a site' clearly states the action (get) and resource (crawl issues/errors for a site), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_crawl_settings' or 'get_crawl_stats' that also involve crawl-related data, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_crawl_stats' or 'get_fetched_urls' that might overlap in context, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.

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