pentest_web_crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: the crawl is restricted to the same host and is bounded in scope. However, it says nothing about authentication handling, rate limiting, robots.txt compliance, redirect or subdomain behavior, or how failures are reported.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the scoping constraint arrives before the collection targets. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into underspecification rather than tight editing.

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?

For a crawl tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: return shape, traversal limits and failure modes are all unstated. Only the same-host scope and extraction targets are covered.

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 all three parameters depend on the description, which only hints 'bounded' at depth/max_pages without explaining crawl-depth semantics, the page cap's effect on truncation, or the expected URL format. The agent must guess what happens when max_pages is hit.

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 (crawl) plus resource (web/URLs) and names what it extracts: URLs, forms and parameters. The 'bounded same-host' qualifier separates it conceptually from pentest_zap_spider and pentest_web_dirbust, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pentest_zap_spider, pentest_web_dirbust or pentest_web_param_discovery, which overlap heavily with this tool's stated output. The only implicit guidance is the 'same-host' scoping, which tells the agent nothing about when this crawl is the right choice over a spider or a dir-buster.

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