validate_llms_txt

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that it returns a parsed structure and an issues list with line numbers, and lists some violation types (missing H1, broken links, non-HTTP URLs). However, it does not mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds valuable detail on output. No unnecessary words.

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 has a single parameter, an output schema (present), and low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does and the output structure without needing to repeat schema details.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by specifying that 'source' can be a local path or URL, but it does not detail format requirements or expected schemes. This is helpful but minimal for a single parameter.

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 validates an llms.txt file against a spec, with a specific verb ('validate') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_llms_txt and other audit tools.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. It only states what the tool does.

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