robots_txt_validate

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: fetching, parsing rules, using RFC 9309 longest-match for probing. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, safe; description enriches with exact behavior.

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 main action, no redundancy. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema but description explains outputs (structured ruleset, per-probe verdicts). Complete for a parsing/probing tool.

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 has 100% coverage; description adds meaning: site_url is relative for fetching, probes return 'allow/deny verdicts using RFC 9309 longest-match'. This enriches parameter understanding beyond schema.

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 fetches /robots.txt, parses user-agent groups, Allow/Disallow, Crawl-delay, Sitemap, and optionally probes URL pairs. It distinguishes from siblings like robots_ai_posture which focuses on AI posture.

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?

Purpose is clear: validate robots.txt and optionally probe URLs. While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the context among siblings (robots_ai_posture, cf_managed_robots) implies it's for parsing and verification.

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