scrape_full_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It details the pipeline steps (crawl, clean, optionally chunk) and the return structure (title, content, links, metadata, chunks). It also mentions handling both static and dynamic pages, adding valuable context. However, it does not address resource consumption, rate limits, or authentication.

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?

Two concise sentences: first describes the pipeline, second defines the return. No wasted words and front-loaded with the key action.

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 the complexity of crawling and cleaning, the description covers the main outputs and mentions dynamic page handling. It lacks details on the cleaning process, max_depth behavior, or prerequisites like authentication, but remains largely complete for selection purposes.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 it's an end-to-end pipeline for crawling every internal page, cleaning HTML, and optionally chunking. It distinguishes from siblings like crawl_website, scrape_website, chunk_content, and clean_content by combining all steps.

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 explains what the tool does and implies use cases for full-site scraping, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives such as crawl_website or scrape_website for simpler tasks.

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