Map site URLs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds value by clarifying output is URL-only with no page content and mentioning the method (sitemap/crawl). No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and method, second clarifies output scope. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

For a mapping tool with 5 well-described parameters and rich annotations, the description is fairly complete. It would benefit from mentioning default behaviors (e.g., crawlFallback defaults to true) but the schema covers these. No output schema, but 'URL list only' is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal parameter context beyond 'sitemap and/or short crawl'. Parameters are adequately described in 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 the verb 'Discover', resource 'URLs on a site', and method 'via sitemap and/or a short crawl'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crw_crawl (which retrieves content) by noting it returns only URLs without page content.

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 implies usage for URL discovery without content, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or how to choose between sitemap vs crawl. No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned.

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