Check Robots.txt

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by detailing the multi-step analysis: parsing directives, fetching/checking sitemap accessibility, and detecting inconsistencies. It does not mention edge cases like missing robots.txt, but the provided details go beyond what annotations convey.

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 with a colon introducing a concise list of capabilities. Every phrase adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the operations performed, and the type of findings (undeclared sitemaps and inconsistencies). The schema covers input semantics, and annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing.

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%: the 'url' parameter is described as 'The site URL (robots.txt will be fetched from the origin)'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies. The parameter meaning is fully captured by the schema and the tool's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') with a clear resource ('a site's robots.txt') and enumerates the exact analyses performed: parsing Allow/Disallow rules per User-Agent, Crawl-delay, declared sitemaps, and cross-checking sitemap accessibility. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like parse_sitemap or fetch_page.

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 establishes a clear context: use this tool when you need robots.txt analysis including rule parsing, sitemap declarations, and consistency checks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when it is appropriate.

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