ghl_kb_crawler_discover

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

The description adds the endpoint URL but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether crawling is asynchronous, how long it takes, or any side effects. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are not contradicted, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 with two sentences, but the first sentence is slightly redundant ('Start crawling and discover pages for training'). It is front-loaded and to the point, with minimal waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a crawl job ID, status). It also lacks information about error handling, rate limits, or post-call behavior. For an action that initiates a process, this is incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (locationId, url, option, knowledgeBaseId). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts crawling and discovers pages for training, aligning with its name. It is distinct from siblings like ghl_kb_crawler_list_urls or ghl_kb_crawler_train, but does not explicitly differentiate the scope or purpose from them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ghl_kb_crawler_train or ghl_kb_crawler_status). It lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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