util_robots_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation but omits details like error handling (e.g., invalid domain, missing robots.txt), rate limits, or whether it performs HTTP requests. The tool's side effects and failure modes are unaddressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word adds value, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 vague parameter schema and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to specify the target domain, what the return value contains (e.g., parsed rules, raw text), or how to handle multiple sitemaps. The agent lacks sufficient context to confidently invoke the 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?

The input schema has a single generic 'arguments' object with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds no parameter guidance, leaving the agent unsure what fields to provide (e.g., URL, domain). This is a critical gap.

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 uses specific verbs 'Read' and 'inspect' and identifies the resource 'robots.txt rules and sitemap declarations', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It implies a pre-crawl use case, helping distinguish from sibling tools like util_sitemap_probe, though not explicitly.

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 suggests use 'before crawling or indexing a domain', providing context. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling utilities.

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