validate_robots_txt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'surface the mistakes' but does not explain what validation entails, whether it is read-only, or how results are presented. The description leaves significant behavioral details unspecified, such as how the content is processed or what constitutes a 'damaging' mistake.

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, tightly written sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for a tool with one parameter.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description lacks guidance on input format and behavioral specifics, making it adequate but incomplete. It is enough for a straightforward validator but leaves room for interpretation.

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 provides no description for the 'content' parameter (0% coverage), and the description does not elaborate on it. While 'content' likely refers to the robots.txt text, the description offers no explicit definition, format, or examples, leaving ambiguity about whether it expects raw text or something else.

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 action ('validate') and resource ('a robots.txt'), and adds specificity with 'surface the mistakes that actually cause damage.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_robots_txt and generate_robots_meta, which focus on creation rather than validation.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have a robots.txt to check for damaging mistakes. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, the verb 'validate' sets a clear context distinct from generation tools, which is sufficient for a simple validation tool.

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