llms.txt check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by disclosing that the tool performs network requests to linked URLs and checks robots access, giving the agent a fuller picture of the tool's operational scope.

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 a single sentence that packs in the resource and all key checks without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the resource names and uses a colon to efficiently list the audited criteria, so every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers what is checked, but it does not explain the checkLinks parameter's semantics or describe the return format, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Given the tool's moderate complexity and multiple checks, a bit more detail on results or the link-checking limit would make it fully complete.

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 only 50%: siteUrl is documented but checkLinks has no schema description. The tool description also fails to explain checkLinks, so the meaning of this parameter remains under-specified in both places. Description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific action verb ('Check') and a precise resource ('/llms.txt and /llms-full.txt'), then enumerates the exact checks performed: existence, size, structure, robots access, and linked URL status. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sitemap_check and robots_check by focusing on llms.txt specifically.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate: whenever an agent needs to audit a site's llms.txt endpoints. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific wording makes the usage context unambiguous.

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