crawl_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by sharing the sitemap preference, sitemap index/robots.txt handling, fallback to link-following, and the exact JSON return fields including 'truncated.' It doesn't mention rate limits or site impact, but it covers the key behavioral aspects.

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?

Three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, crawl strategy, return payload, and usage recommendation. No filler or redundancy.

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 gives a solid overview for a moderately complex crawler: discovery method, fallback behavior, and return fields. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are less critical. Minor gaps like limit semantics and edge cases (e.g., no sitemap) keep it from a 5.

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% and the description does not explain the 'url' or 'limit' parameters at all. The schema only provides titles and defaults, so the tool description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Discover the pages on a website.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating it should be run before fetch_pages to scrape a whole site, making its role in the workflow obvious.

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?

Provides clear usage context: run this before fetch_pages to scrape a whole site. It also explains the sitemap-first strategy and fallback behavior. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name all alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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