well_known

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently lists the files fetched and what is extracted from each (paths, URLs, etc.) and mentions scope restrictions. It does not elaborate on network behavior or rate limits, but the core actions are clear.

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 concise, front-loading the main action and then listing specifics. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., breaking into sentences for each file), but it is efficient and avoids fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a complete picture of what the tool does, including which files, what is extracted, and scope. It enables an agent to assess suitability for discovery tasks.

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 only parameter 'target' is not described in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify what 'target' expects (e.g., hostname or URL), but it fails to do so, leaving ambiguity.

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 it fetches and parses well-known files (robots.txt, sitemap.xml, security.txt, humans.txt) and extracts specific elements from each. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'content_discovery' by being focused on these specific disclosure files.

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 notes it is 'quick, low-noise' and 'in scope only,' implying it is ideal for initial reconnaissance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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