seo_robots_ai

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Analyze' reasonably implies a read-only action and the output is described, but the description doesn't mention limitations such as only recognizing known AI crawlers or behavior on malformed robots.txt input.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and directly states the output, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the core input and expected result sufficiently. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with seo_ai_crawlers, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% because the only parameter, robotsTxt, is already described as 'Content of robots.txt file'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Analyze') with a specific resource ('robots.txt') and clearly states the output ('which AI crawlers are allowed or blocked'). It is clear on its own, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling seo_ai_crawlers.

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 the tool should be used when you have robots.txt content and want AI crawler permission status, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like seo_generate_robots or seo_ai_crawlers.

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