robots_ai_posture

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds that it is offline, makes no network calls, performs no writes, and always includes trade-off alternatives and mandatory caveats about Content-Signal being honored by adopting crawlers and ignored by Googlebot.

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 two well-structured sentences that front-load the primary action and output, then list key behavioral properties and return characteristics. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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 only two optional parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the input (business goal), output (artifact and trade-offs), behavioral constraints, and important caveats about Content-Signal recognition.

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% and describes both parameters clearly. The description adds context about the output (artifact, trade-offs) and ties the goal parameter to business goals, but does not elaborate on the sitemap_url parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 recommends a Content-Signals posture and emits a ready-to-apply artifact including a directive line and robots.txt. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like robots_txt_validate or cf_managed_robots which do different tasks.

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 explains the tool is read-only, offline, deterministic, and always returns trade-offs and a caveat. It implies usage for generating a posture recommendation but does not explicitly contrast with other robots.txt tools or state when not to use it.

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