crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses basic behavior (recursive crawling, output format) and hints at content extraction via extract_content. However, it omits important traits such as domain scope restrictions, robots.txt compliance, rate limiting, timeout behavior, and handling of external links. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond what is already implied.

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 three sentences long, well-structured with the main action first, then output format, then a focused usage hint. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and the fact that schema coverage is 100%, the description covers the core purpose and output structure. It also highlights the distinguishing link_pattern parameter. However, it could be more complete by noting key parameters like max_pages or render_js, which affect behavior significantly. Still, the combination of description and well-documented schema provides a fairly comprehensive understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by explaining the output format and suggesting link_pattern usage, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Each parameter is already clearly described in the schema with defaults and constraints.

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 crawls a website by starting from a seed URL and following links across multiple pages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_url (single page) and fetch_multiple (specific URLs). It also explicitly describes the output format as an array of {url, title, content} objects, which provides concrete purpose clarity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_url or fetch_multiple. It only mentions using link_pattern to restrict crawling, which is a parameter usage tip, not a usage guideline. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid this tool.

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