crawl_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output artifact (Markdown files plus index.md) but says nothing about rate limiting/politeness, robots handling, overwrite or failure behavior, or what happens on partial crawls — significant gaps for a tool that writes many files to disk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating action and output with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the schema fully documents inputs. However, in a five-sibling docs/fetch/save library, the description omits the routing information (crawl-site vs fetch-single-page) and crawl-scope behavior that an agent needs to pick this tool correctly.

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% and every parameter (url, directory, max_pages, path_prefix) is well documented with defaults and rationale in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (crawl), a specific resource (a documentation site) and the concrete outcome (every page saved as Markdown plus index.md). It clearly distinguishes the action from the sibling names fetch_markdown/save_markdown/list_library, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. It never tells the agent to prefer this over fetch_markdown for a single page, or when a crawl is inappropriate (e.g., huge sites, auth-protected docs). Usage is only loosely implied by the word 'crawl'.

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