generate_robots_txt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Generate' but does not disclose whether the tool returns text, writes files, or has any side effects. It also fails to mention any limitations, such as whether it only outputs a template or supports full customization. The 'optionally block' phrase hints at behavior but lacks detail.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds the optional AI crawler feature. However, it is so brief that it misses critical information, which slightly reduces the score from 5.

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 5 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. The output schema exists but is not visible to us, and the description does not explain return values or behavior. The agent is left without context on how to properly invoke the tool or interpret results.

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 any of the 5 parameters. The only hint is 'block AI crawlers', which maps to block_ai_crawlers but is not explicitly tied to the parameter. There is no explanation of allow_paths, disallow_paths, crawl_delay, or sitemap_url, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone.

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 primary function with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a robots.txt'. It also mentions a key feature (optionally blocking AI crawlers) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_robots_txt or generate_robots_meta.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify when one might need validate_robots_txt instead of this generator.

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