httrack_mirror

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool downloads the entire website, preserves structure, caps depth at 5, caps max_size at 500 MB, supports timeout overrides, requires HTTrack installation, and enforces the allowed_hosts constraint. It also summarizes the return contents, providing comprehensive behavior beyond the schema.

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 clear sections (summary, useful-for, args, returns, note) and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. It is somewhat lengthy, but each section provides necessary information without redundant fluff, so it remains efficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, all parameters, output summary, prerequisites (HTTrack installed, allowed_hosts), and safety caps. Since an output schema exists, the return values are sufficiently described. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the 'Args' section in the description explains all 6 parameters: target, depth, output_dir, max_size, include_assets, and timeout, including defaults, ranges, and constraints. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Mirror a website locally for offline analysis using HTTrack' and elaborates on downloading the full site (HTML, JS, CSS, images), which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and purpose. It also lists concrete use cases that differentiate it from sibling tools like katana_crawl (crawling) or gowitness_screenshot (screenshots).

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 includes a 'Useful for' section with three explicit scenarios (forensic snapshots, offline secret search, mapping structure) and advises setting depth=1 for a shallow mirror. It provides clear context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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