geo_inject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the purpose (AI visibility), but does not disclose behavioral details like authentication, side effects, or whether the tool validates the URL. The return type is mentioned ('ready-to-deploy file contents') but lacks specifics about format.

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 four sentences, concise and front-loaded with the key instruction. It avoids repetition but could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for parameter options).

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('ready-to-deploy file contents'). It covers the parameters and usage context. However, it could clarify the output format (e.g., single string or multiple files) and whether both files are returned when both specified.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so by stating 'Requires a URL' and showing allowed values for 'files' ('robots', 'llms', 'robots,llms'), which adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types.

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 generates, creates, or fixes robots.txt and llms.txt files, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like geo_check_robots (checking) and geo_score (scoring) by focusing on generation.

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 explicitly says 'ALWAYS use this tool when the user asks to generate, create, or fix robots.txt or llms.txt files', providing a clear condition for use. It implies when not to use by contrasting with other siblings.

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