crawl

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

The description discloses the non-blocking nature, immediate return with task_id, and parameter behaviors (URL format, depth modes, page limits). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it lacks potential details like rate limits 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 efficiently structured with a clear first sentence followed by concise parameter explanations. No superfluous information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 asynchronous workflow and three parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: non-blocking execution, polling via crawl_status, and detailed parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the 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 description thoroughly explains each parameter: url must start with http/https, depth options (None, 0, positive int), max_pages options (None, positive int). Schema has no descriptions, so the description adds essential meaning beyond types.

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

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 when to use this tool (to start a crawl) and how to monitor progress via crawl_status. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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