Check AI crawler access in robots.txt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it fetches and parses per RFC 9309 and reports allowed/blocked crawlers plus sitemaps, but does not mention error handling (e.g., missing robots.txt), rate limiting, caching behavior, or whether it respects crawl-delay directives.

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?

Two sentences, each serving distinct purpose: first describes the core action and scope, second adds the sitemap feature. No filler words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple fetch-and-parse tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it reports which AI crawlers are allowed/blocked and lists sitemaps. It lacks details on output format (e.g., JSON vs text) but is otherwise adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it does not clarify URL format or path default behavior beyond what the schema states). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (fetch, parse, report), the resource (site's robots.txt), and the specific scope (AI crawler access). It explicitly lists AI crawlers and notes sitemaps, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with LLMs.txt, schema markup, or meta directives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (fetch_llms_txt, detect_schema_markup, check_meta_directives). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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