llms_txt_generator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains key behaviors: parsing sitemap.xml and nested indexes, grouping URLs by top-level path, truncating after limit, and the slower title-fetching mode. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but such details are less critical for a generation tool.

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 process. Every sentence contributes necessary information: the first covers the core functionality, the second explains the key optional parameter's trade-off. No redundancy or filler.

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 has no output schema, the description adequately describes the output format (Markdown with H1, description, sectioned link lists). It covers all parameter interactions, the grouping logic, and the title-fetching behavior. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is complete and leaves no major gaps in understanding.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining the overall process and how parameters like fetch_titles affect behavior. It also clarifies that site_description is optional but recommended, and that limit applies before title fetch.

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 generates an llms.txt file from a sitemap, specifying the process (parsing, grouping, emitting) and the output format (Markdown with H1, description, sectioned link lists). It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_sitemap or sitemap_citation_map by its unique function.

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 use: when you have a sitemap URL and want to generate an llms.txt file. It explains the optional fetch_titles flag and its trade-off (slower but richer). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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