sagrank_check_ai_crawlers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (checks robots.txt) and the output (status per crawler) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if it requires permissions, what happens if robots.txt is missing, or any side effects. This leaves the agent without key behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the main purpose, lists the specific crawlers, and states the output. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (status and exact directives). It covers the scope (8 crawlers) and the action. However, it does not address edge cases like missing robots.txt, redirects, or error handling, but for a focused check tool this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter (url) with a clear description ('La URL o dominio del sitio web a inspeccionar.'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond that, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra guidance on URL format or validation is provided.

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's function: checking the access status of 8 specific AI crawlers in a website's robots.txt, and it explicitly lists the crawlers and the types of outcomes (Permitidos, Bloqueados, Restringidos). This verb+resource specificity distinguishes it from siblings like sagrank_audit (broader audit) and sagrank_compare (comparison).

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or context for selection. It simply describes the action without guiding the agent on appropriate scenarios or trade-offs compared to sibling tools.

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