web_map

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses graph traversal, configurable depth and breadth, instruction filtering, and potential timeout issues for large sites. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not cover authentication or error handling.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, key features in bullet points, and a separate best practices section. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, configuration controls, and practical edge cases (timeouts, filtering). Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value details is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand how to deploy and tune the tool effectively.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining how to use max_depth and instructions in practice (e.g., 'Start with low max_depth (1-2) for initial exploration'), adding value beyond the schema's bare parameter definitions.

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's purpose: 'Maps a website's structure by traversing it like a graph, discovering URLs and generating a comprehensive site map.' This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like web_fetch or web_search, which focus on fetching individual pages or searching the web.

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 practical usage tips such as starting with low max_depth (1-2) and using instructions to filter content. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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