check_ai_bot_access

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses fetching two URLs, reporting per-bot allow/disallow and Cloudflare warnings. While it doesn't detail error handling or rate limits, the core read-only behavior is transparent enough for selection.

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: first states the purpose, second lists actions and outputs. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the core function.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description sufficiently covers what it does and what it produces. Could be more complete with a note on error scenarios or usage prerequisites, 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% with a clear description for the single 'domain' parameter. The description adds value by explaining that the tool fetches robots.txt and root URL for that domain, providing context beyond the schema's example format.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'AI bot access' for this site. It specifies the actions: fetching /robots.txt and root URL, and reporting per-bot allow/disallow plus Cloudflare signals. This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_ai_visibility (broader audit) and check_llm_mention (mentions).

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 implies usage contexts (checking AI bot access via robots.txt and root URL) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like audit_ai_visibility or check_llm_mention. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance.

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