Analyze robots.txt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it fetches and summarizes only, explicitly avoiding crawling the disclosed paths, which tells the agent this is a passive read.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause (RFC 9309, authorized origin, no path crawling) carries weight.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The definition is nearly complete for a one-parameter fetch tool; only the url input format is left unaddressed.

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 0% for the single url parameter, and the description adds only marginal meaning by implying the input is an 'authorized origin' (scheme+host). It offers no format, normalization, or scheme guidance for the url value.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch and summarize') and resource ('robots.txt file'), scoped by the RFC 9309 reference. It is clearly distinct from siblings like sitemap_analysis or security_txt_analysis, though it never names an alternative to differentiate 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 phrase 'without crawling disclosed paths' implies the tool reads and parses robots.txt rather than following it, which is a useful behavioral signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance or prerequisite statement.

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