Draft an llms.txt from the sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it crawls up to maxPages, reads titles and meta descriptions, and produces a draft in a specific format. It also notes the draft must be reviewed before publishing, indicating it does not write directly. This adds meaningful 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Crawl the sitemap') and efficiently packs in the output format and a safety instruction. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description explains the process, output format, and that the result is a draft to be reviewed before publishing. It does not explicitly state the return type, but 'produce a draft' implies the tool returns the draft. Overall, it covers the essential information for an agent to use it correctly.

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 descriptions cover 3 of 5 parameters (summary, siteName, excludePatterns). The description clarifies that maxPages limits the crawl ('up to maxPages') and implies siteUrl is the sitemap source, but it does not explicitly define siteUrl or maxPages beyond that. Since coverage is 60%, the description partially compensates but leaves siteUrl ambiguous.

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 (crawl, read, produce) and resource (draft llms.txt) with specific format details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like llms_txt_check (which likely checks existing files) by focusing on generation. The process is 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 implies the tool is for generating a draft from a sitemap but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like llms_txt_check or site_crawl. It provides context ('Crawl the sitemap') but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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