check_ai_crawlers

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 states the tool checks based on robots.txt and lists specific crawlers, but does not disclose behavior for missing robots.txt, error handling, or output format. Adequate but missing details for a standalone description.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and list of crawlers, followed by use cases. No redundant words. Earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema). The description lists crawlers and use cases but does not hint at the return format (e.g., allowed/blocked per crawler). Adequate for an agent, but not fully complete without output guidance.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter (url) with a clear description. The tool description adds that robots.txt is derived from the URL, which matches the schema. No additional semantics needed beyond schema, so baseline 3.

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 checks if specific AI crawlers are allowed via robots.txt, and provides explicit use cases (AI visibility, AEO, crawler permissions, not appearing in ChatGPT). It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_url or inspect_llms_txt by focusing on AI crawlers.

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 'Use when asked about AI visibility, AEO, crawler permissions, or why a site does not appear in ChatGPT or Perplexity.' It implies context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like audit_url for broader robots.txt checks.

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