crw-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic functionality without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, content size limits, or whether the tool respects robots.txt. The phrase 'extract content from any web page' may be misleading without qualifications.

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 in two sentences: the first states core functionality, the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key limitations.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The context signals indicate moderate complexity that warrants more disclosure than provided.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, format details, or usage patterns). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('scrape a single URL') and resource ('any web page'), with explicit output formats ('markdown, HTML, or links'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crw_crawl (which likely handles multiple URLs) by emphasizing 'single URL' extraction.

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 extracting content from web pages, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crw_crawl or crw_map. It lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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