crawl

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'non-blocking' and depth behavior, which adds value. However, it does not cover other important aspects like idempotency, permissions, or side effects.

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 concise: two sentences, no fluff. The key points (non-blocking, depth, render_mode) are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers asynchronous behavior, depth, and render mode, but omits 'url', 'max_pages', and 'include_subdomains'. Despite having an output schema, the missing parameter descriptions reduce completeness. Given 5 params and no annotations, more detail is needed.

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 0%. The description adds meaning for 'depth' (whole site vs single URL) and 'render_mode' (http vs browser), but other parameters like 'url', 'max_pages', and 'include_subdomains' remain unexplained. This is insufficient to compensate 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 clearly states the verb 'start' and the resource 'crawl', and explains it is non-blocking and how to poll for results via 'crawl_status'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'crawl_status' tool. Depth and render_mode are also clarified.

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 provides usage context: non-blocking, poll via crawl_status, and depth values (None vs 0). It implies when to use different depths but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the sibling.

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