Plan d'action Screaming Frog

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context by saying actions are prioritized and categories are template/content/highly-linked URLs, but it does not explain ordering criteria, pagination, output shape, or the dependency on a crawl.

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 very short, but the opening phrase 'Plan d'action Screaming Frog' largely repeats the tool title, and the endpoint suffix adds little. It is not overlong, yet part of the text does not earn 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with one required parameter and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the response structure, and it offers no selection guidance among the many audit/Screaming Frog sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so every parameter (siteId, crawl, priorite, categorie) is already documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 identifies a specific resource — the Screaming Frog action plan — and states that it returns prioritized corrective actions grouped by categories (template, content, highly linked URLs). It is clear enough to distinguish from crawling/dashboard siblings, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listAuditActions, getScreamingFrogDashboard, or getScreamingFrogIssue. The description does not mention prerequisites like an existing crawl or explain how this differs from other audit/action tools.

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