crawl

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses it launches a background task, returns immediately, and details parameter behaviors (e.g., depth meaning, render_mode options). It provides good transparency but could mention error handling or failure paths.

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 and bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence is informative and concise, with no wasted words.

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 parameter count, lack of annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers all parameters and key behaviors (non-blocking, task_id return). It could more explicitly state that url is required, but the 'Args' section implies 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter: url requires http/https, depth values, max_pages limits, render_mode choices. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 it crawls a web page and adds it to the knowledge base, is non-blocking, and returns a task_id. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool crawl_status by referencing it for polling progress.

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 explains that the tool is non-blocking and suggests using crawl_status(task_id) to poll progress. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives beyond crawl_status.

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