llms.txt check

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

The description enumerates the specific checks performed (existence, size, structure, robots access, link status), providing a clear picture of the tool's behavior. The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations support that no mutations occur, and the description does not contradict them.

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, well-structured sentence listing the checks in a logical order. It contains no redundant wording and directly conveys the tool's functionality.

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 lists the checks but does not explain the output format or how results are returned, which is relevant given the absence of an output schema. It also omits context for the checkLinks parameter and does not define what constitutes a valid structure (e.g., H1, blockquote) for llms.txt.

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?

Only the siteUrl parameter is documented in the schema, and the description does not elaborate on the checkLinks parameter, which controls the number of linked URLs to test. This leaves a required parameter for fine-tuning the check without any explanation.

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: to check the llms.txt file for existence, size, structure, robots access, and link status. It distinguishes itself from related tools like robots_check or page_audit by its specific focus on llms.txt.

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 verifying llms.txt files, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like llms_txt_generate or sitemap_check. Nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a valid site URL or handling of robots restrictions.

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