security_robots_txt_generator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that generation only assembles and validates strings, does not fetch/test/deploy, and that crawler compliance is voluntary. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary and uses bullet-like structure for modes. Slightly lengthy but every sentence is useful. Minor truncation ('non-de') but does not detract.

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 complexity (multiple modes, nested input, output schema), the description covers operation modes, input requirements, limitations, and alternative tools. Adequate for an agent to select and invole the tool 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 100% with good descriptions. The tool description adds context beyond the schema, such as explaining each operation mode in detail and listing the preset names. This adds value, earning above baseline.

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 title and description clearly state the tool builds, parses, and presets robots.txt files per RFC 9309. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning security_htaccess_generator and seo_sitemap_generator as alternatives for different purposes.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use each operation mode, and exclusions: use seo_sitemap_generator for sitemaps, security_htaccess_generator for Apache directives. Also states limitations: does not fetch, test, or deploy the file.

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