cewl_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool crawls the site, generates network traffic, and respects the allowed_hosts constraint. It also notes depth-related traffic concerns. However, it does not cover error handling, robots.txt behavior, or potential side effects beyond creating the output file, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by compact Args, Returns, and Notes sections. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 (6 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, all parameters, return values, usage constraints, and a caution about traffic. It is nearly complete, though it could mention prerequisites like authentication but the allowed_hosts note covers access control. Overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for parameters, so the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and defaults. It adds value like depth max 5 and default word length, going beyond the raw schema. This effectively documents all 6 parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate a custom wordlist by crawling a website with CeWL.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling crawling or scanning tools by focusing on wordlist generation for password attacks. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies usage for creating organization-specific wordlists for password attacks and provides clear context through notes about cautious depth and allowed_hosts requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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