robots_txt_diff

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is a unified diff and that inputs are historical check ids, but says nothing about diff size, truncation, or behavior when the two checks are identical. Adequate but not rich.

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?

One tight sentence with the key qualifier (ids from robots_txt_history) placed where it is immediately visible. Nothing is wasted, though the sentence is so terse that a small amount of clarifying structure could have been added at no cost.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the direction semantics of from/to remain ambiguous.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it does clarify that both ids come from robots_txt_history, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not clarify the from/to directionality – whether the diff reads as changes from from_check_id to to_check_id.

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 names a specific operation and resource: a unified diff between two stored robots.txt checks. Pointing to robots_txt_history as the source of ids distinguishes it from robots_txt_check and robots_txt_test, though it does not explicitly say what the diff is used for.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'stored robots.txt checks' – you need prior checks to diff – and the parenthetical points to robots_txt_history for obtaining ids. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over robots_txt_check or robots_txt_history, nor any exclusion.

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