crawl_website

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses crawl behavior: BFS algorithm, internal links only, respects robots.txt, avoids duplicates, limits depth and page count. Also states returned data (title, content, links). Lacks details on rate limiting or performance impact but is still thorough.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, behavior, constraints, and output. No redundancy or filler. Information-dense and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (title, content, links). Covers all input parameters, behavior, constraints, and output format. No missing critical information for a crawl tool with two params.

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 100%, and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'link-hops' for max_depth) but does not enhance understanding beyond schema defaults and bounds.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: BFS-crawl an entire website from a root URL. It specifies algorithm, constraints (internal links, robots.txt, duplicate avoidance, depth/count limits), and output (title, content, links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scrape_website' (presumably single-page) and 'scrape_full_site'.

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: use for full-site crawling. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scrape_website' or 'scrape_full_site'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite info provided.

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