map_website

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('list of URLs with source and modification metadata'), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, network/rate-limit behavior, robots.txt compliance, or failure modes for a network-fetching tool.

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 tight sentences: the purpose and mechanism lead, and the return/usage context follows. Every clause carries information with no padding or restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does cover the return contents, which is the main gap it needed to fill. Remaining omissions are behavioral (safety/rate/permission context) rather than structural, so it is largely complete for a 2-parameter discovery tool.

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%, so both parameters (url, max_links) are already fully documented in the schema, including the default and 1-500 range. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover the architecture and page inventory of a website domain') plus the mechanisms used (sitemaps, robots.txt, link graphs). This clearly separates it from extraction siblings, though it does not name the closest sibling (crawl_website) explicitly.

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?

'Useful for exploring a site before targeted crawling' gives a concrete usage context that positions it ahead of crawl_website/extract_web_content. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it, so it is strong context without exclusions.

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