crawl_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating it 'returns the completed result sequence', implying a buffered (non-streaming) behavior, and 'stdio-safe' suggests a particular output handling. However, it omits details on error handling, side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which a fully transparent description might include.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main verb ('Crawl') and directly states the output. No word is wasted, and it remains informative despite its brevity.

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 tool has an output schema, return values are covered. But the description does not explain the optional config parameters, the exact semantics of 'completed', error behavior, or how it differs from the sibling 'crawl'. It provides a minimal baseline but leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple configurable parameters.

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 compensate. It only mentions 'multiple URLs', which maps to the 'urls' parameter, but says nothing about 'browser_config' or 'crawler_config'. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 the tool 'Crawl multiple URLs' and specifies the return behavior ('returns the completed result sequence'), giving a specific verb and resource. It also hints at differentiation from a sibling via 'stdio-safe streaming equivalent', though this is somewhat vague without knowing what the non-streaming equivalent does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'stdio-safe streaming equivalent' implies a use case but does not state it clearly, nor does it mention any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'crawl' or 'crawl_job_submit'.

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