crawl_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'crawl and download' which implies network operations and data retrieval, but fails to disclose critical traits like authentication needs, rate limits (though hinted in schema), potential destructive effects (e.g., overwriting files), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with complex behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameters, network operations, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'crawl' entails (e.g., recursive linking, HTML parsing), what 'download' produces (e.g., files, database entries), or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with inadequate context for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'max_depth' relates to documentation structure or what 'include_patterns' typically look like). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('crawl and download') and resource ('documentation from a website'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_documentation' or 'generate_cheatsheet', which prevents a perfect score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_documentation' or 'generate_cheatsheet'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit alternatives, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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