web_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the graph traversal approach, depth/breadth controls, instruction filtering, and edge cases like timeout limits ('Large sites may hit timeout limits; adjust timeout and limit parameters accordingly'). This reveals non-destructive behavior implicitly (mapping a site does not modify it) and provides practical limits. It could be more explicit about being read-only, but the overall behavior is transparent enough.

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 well-structured with clear headings ('Key Features', 'Edge Cases & Best Practices') and bullet points. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by relevant details. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool or its usage, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and multiple controls.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters including traversal controls) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary ground: how it works (graph traversal), how to control it (depth/breadth/limit/timeout), and how to handle edge cases (timeouts, instructions for filtering). It doesn't explicitly mention prerequisites like authentication or public accessibility, but these are not critical for a mapping tool. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of parameters in context (e.g., depth and breadth control under 'Depth & Breadth Control', instructions under 'Instruction Filtering') and giving concrete usage advice like 'Start with low max_depth (1-2) for initial exploration'. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions and provides actionable parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Maps a website's structure by traversing it like a graph, discovering URLs and generating a comprehensive site map.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like web_search (searching) and web_fetch (fetching a single page). The mention of 'site map' and graph traversal makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 best practices for using the tool (e.g., 'Start with low max_depth (1-2) for initial exploration', 'Use instructions to filter for specific content'), which gives practical usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools, so an agent must infer when web_map is appropriate. This is clear context but lacks explicit routing.

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