crawl_spa

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Crawl Single Page Applications,' omitting critical details such as whether the crawl is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or affects system state. There is no mention of rate limits, delays, or what happens to the target system.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than valuable conciseness. The brief text does not earn its place because it provides no actionable guidance beyond the tool name. A better description would front-load key information while being appropriately detailed.

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 has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is radically incomplete. It does not explain what the crawl returns, whether it handles client-side rendering, or any limitations. An agent would have no basis to invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description.

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 for its two parameters (target_url and max_pages). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the format of target_url, the role of max_pages, or any constraints. Without compensation, this fails to help an agent use the tool correctly.

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 'Crawl Single Page Applications' clearly specifies the verb 'crawl' and the resource type 'Single Page Applications,' which distinguishes it from siblings like 'scan_website_comprehensive' that may target general websites. However, it lacks specificity on what the crawl entails (e.g., does it execute JavaScript?), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of whether to use it for SPAs versus static sites, or how it differs from 'scan_javascript_app.' The description offers no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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