check_robots

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature or rate limits. It only lists what is inspected but does not describe how the tool behaves (e.g., whether it fetches the file, caches results, or requires authentication).

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Inspect' and lists the items inspected.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), but the description does not hint at the output structure. Given the complexity of inspecting multiple items, the description should provide some context about the return format or what constitutes successful retrieval.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'url' parameter beyond its name. It fails to specify expected format (e.g., full URL with protocol), or that it should point to the root domain's robots.txt.

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 purpose: inspecting robots.txt permissions, crawl delay, request rate, and sitemap declarations. It distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'crawl_url' or 'extract_links' by focusing on robots.txt analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify that it should be used before crawling to check permissions, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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