Train KB from Website

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation with external side effects. The description adds the concept of crawling, which implies network activity, but does not disclose details about whether existing KB content is replaced, how long ingestion takes, or whether it is synchronous or asynchronous.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no wasted wording or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simple two-parameter schema and annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, without an output schema, it would help to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a job status or success message). It also omits any guidance on URL format or crawl scope, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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%, with both parameters (urls and rag_id) adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Crawl and ingest one or more URLs into a knowledge base.' This specifies the verb (crawl and ingest), the resource (URLs), and the target (knowledge base), distinguishing it from parsing tools and other KB training tools.

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 implies the tool is used for adding web content to a knowledge base, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like lyzr_parse_website or lyzr_kg_train_website, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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