crawl_site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it respects robots.txt, confines crawling to the same origin, caps at 10 pages, and detects duplicate titles/descriptions. It stops short of describing return format or any rate-limit/auth behavior, but the annotation baseline lowers that burden.

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 efficient sentence with the primary action front-loaded ('Crawl up to 10 pages...'), followed by key constraints and detection behavior. No sentence is wasted.

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 an open-world crawl tool with no output schema, the description covers the main constraints but leaves important behavior implicit: what the response looks like, whether links are followed, and how duplicates are reported. It is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to invoke with confidence.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the URL is an origin seed for a same-origin crawl and that page count is capped at 10, which adds meaning to both parameters. It does not state that url is required, the default of 5, or the minimum of 1, so coverage is partial.

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 and resource: 'Crawl up to 10 pages on the exact same origin.' It adds the robots.txt constraint and duplicate-detection purpose, which makes the tool's role clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings audit_url and audit_html, though the multi-page crawl scope implies a difference.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope constraints ('exact same origin', 'up to 10 pages'), which tell the agent this is for limited same-origin site crawls rather than single-URL fetches. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to audit_url/audit_html, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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