crawl_and_review

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses behavior: discovers internal links, deduplicates, visits up to maxPages (with default and max), and performs screenshot, axe-core audit, and Performance API metrics on each page. It also notes the tool is free and runs within Claude Code. This is comprehensive for a read-only audit tool.

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 concise (5 sentences) with each sentence adding unique value. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and ends with a note on cost. No filler or repetition.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description lists what each page audit produces (screenshot, axe-core, Performance API) and the page limit. It could be more complete by describing the return format or structure, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the max for maxPages (10) beyond the schema's default, and clarifies the purpose of codeDir as 'reserved for future use'. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 multiple pages from a starting URL and runs accessibility + performance audits. It distinguishes itself from the sibling lighthouse_audit by explicitly stating it does NOT run Lighthouse.

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 advises using this tool to 'audit an entire site section quickly' and clarifies it does not run Lighthouse, providing clear differentiation from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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