security_robots_txt_generator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It mentions RFC 9309 compliance and features but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites files, requires authentication, or any side effects. The suggestion to use describe_tool implies more detail is needed elsewhere.

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?

Three sentences; includes a menu ID which is not useful for an agent. The core description is adequate but could be more concise. Front-loading is acceptable but the third sentence (suggesting describe_tool) adds little value.

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 no annotations or output schema, and a nested input schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the operation parameter, does not explain the presets functionality, and defers to another tool for full guidance. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0% so description must compensate. It explains the input object properties (groups, sitemaps) but does not mention the 'operation' parameter at all. The mention of 'curated presets' does not map to any schema parameter, causing potential confusion. Partially adds meaning but leaves gaps.

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 that the tool generates an RFC 9309 compliant robots.txt file and lists specific features (user-agent groups, allow/disallow rules, crawl-delay, sitemap references, presets for CMS). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly unrelated (crypto, conversion, etc.).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only suggests using describe_tool for full page guidance, but that is not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios.

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