Steal this style — crawl a whole site into one design brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses crawling behavior ('nav links first'), the merging and ranking logic, and clarifies it never copies images or logos. It does not mention potential side effects like file saving or timeouts, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing the output components. It avoids fluff, though the long list of output elements makes it slightly lengthy; still, every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool without an output schema, the description explains the output in sufficient detail: fonts, color roles, type ramp, spacing, radii, shadows, section anatomy, and CSS/Tailwind theme. It also explains the merging logic (ranked by cross-page frequency). Missing details like exact return format are acceptable given the described pasteable output.

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%, so all parameters have adequate descriptions. The tool description adds marginal context ('nav links first' aligns with maxPages) but does not substantially elaborate on parameter usage or syntax beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('crawl') and resource ('same-origin pages'), and clearly defines the output as a consolidated design brief with merged tokens, section anatomy, and CSS theme. It distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_design_tokens by focusing on cross-page merging and explicitly excluding images and logos.

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 usage for whole-site design extraction but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks explicit exclusions or conditions that would guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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