validate_robots

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that validation is local, no fetch is executed, and lists specific checks. No contradictions. It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but those are irrelevant for a local validation tool.

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, no waste. First sentence lists all checks performed; second clarifies operational details. Front-loaded with purpose.

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's complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is checked, that it's local, and parameters. Slightly lacks integration with sibling differentiation, but adequate.

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 100%; both parameters are described. The description adds 'вставьте текст целиком' (paste the entire text) for the content parameter, which adds clarity beyond the schema. Baseline 3 with slight improvement.

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 states the tool validates robots.txt content for syntax, sitemap directive, blocking CSS/JS from render bots, and explicit disallowances for AI crawlers. It clearly identifies the resource (robots.txt) and the action (validate), and distinguishes from siblings like check_sitemap or audit_site.

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 says to pass the file text and emphasizes that no fetch is performed; validation is local. This implies when to use (when you have raw content). It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools provide context.

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