crawler_access_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool parses robots.txt and performs live GET requests with each bot's User-Agent, surfacing both robots.txt blocks and UA-based gating. However, it does not mention potential impacts such as rate limits or server log implications.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides essential information without unnecessary detail.

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 explains what the tool does but lacks details about the output format or return values. Given the complexity (multiple bots, live fetch) and no output schema, the description should mention what the user can expect as a result (e.g., a list of blocks vs. successful fetches).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the default bot list and the behavioral effect of 'fetch_with_ua' but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it verifies AI crawler access, lists specific bots, and explains it parses robots.txt and does live GET requests. This differentiates it from siblings like 'check_citations' or 'citation_evidence' which focus on citations, not crawler access.

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 implicitly tells users to use this tool to verify AI crawler access for a URL. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is the appropriate choice for crawler access auditing.

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