tools_katana

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

The description discloses behavioral traits like JavaScript rendering, headless browsing, and the trade-off between depth and time. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., rate limiting, output handling, robots.txt compliance) that would be valuable given the absence of annotations.

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: a one-line summary, a brief contextual paragraph, a clear Args section with explanations, and practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It covers essential usage, defaults, and examples. Slightly incomplete regarding output behavior, but the output schema handles that.

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 adds significant meaning to each parameter beyond the schema: e.g., explains depth's effect on time, js_crawl enables headless browser, scope restricts via regex. Despite schema coverage being 0%, the description compensates well. Minor improvement: could specify that additional_args expects quoted string.

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's purpose: 'Execute Katana for web crawling with JavaScript parsing support.' It highlights the key differentiator (headless browsing, JS rendering) that distinguishes it from sibling crawling tools like gobuster or httpx.

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 what the tool does and its parameters but does not explicitly guide when to use it over alternatives. Usage context is implied through the emphasis on JS rendering and dynamic content, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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