Test a robots.txt for a crawler and a path

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: the 'no request' guarantee for text mode, the JSON schemaVersion 1 output contract, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that text from a site is data, not instructions.

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?

Four sentences, all functional, with the core purpose front-loaded. The final injection warning is worth its space, though the phrasing is dense and could be split for scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return format (JSON, schemaVersion 1) and pointing to the equivalent CLI output. Fetch-failure behavior for url mode is the one notable omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by clarifying the url-vs-text choice and the consequence of omitting agent (all covered crawlers tested), which is behavioral meaning the schema only partially conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('says which robots.txt line decides for a crawler token and a path') with the RFC cited, which cleanly separates it from llms_validate, llms_generate and crawlers.

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?

Explicitly distinguishes the two modes: pass url to fetch a site's robots.txt, or text to test an existing file with no request. It also notes that omitting agent tests every covered crawler. No named alternatives or when-not guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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