katana_crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It mentions JavaScript rendering, form submission, scope-aware crawling, and timeout override, but does not disclose potential network load/noise, authentication requirements, or a safety profile. It implies active crawling but could be more explicit about impact.

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?

Well-structured: one-sentence summary, brief tool context, clear argument list, return description, and a note. No fluff; every line adds information.

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?

Description provides the core function, tool background, parameter semantics, return value summary, and an important scope constraint. It doesn't elaborate on output schema (but that's handled by output schema) or mention alternatives, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 has zero descriptions, but the Args section fully explains every parameter: target, depth (with default/max), concurrency (with default/max), js_crawl (purpose), and timeout (meaning). This directly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action verb ('Crawl a web application to discover endpoints and URLs') and names the underlying tool (Katana). It further distinguishes from sibling scanners by noting JavaScript rendering, form submission, and scope-aware crawling capabilities, which are unique differentiators.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose (crawling to discover endpoints and URLs). The note about target needing to be in allowed_hosts is a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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