robots_txt_watch

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered, but a false readOnlyHint on a polling tool is exactly the kind of thing that needs explanation. The description does add genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the watch persists in the background and only advances while Claude Desktop is open. It stops short of saying what happens to accumulated history, how often checks actually fire, or that no version is captured while the app is closed.

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 sentence with no filler, and the most important qualifier, the Desktop-only background nature, is embedded early rather than buried. It is efficient, though it burns its brevity on runtime context instead of the operation controls.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation nuance to lean on, so the description carries the full burden for a three-parameter, stateful, three-mode tool. It omits what each action returns, whether watches survive restarts, and how the gathered history relates to robots_txt_history and robots_txt_diff.

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 only 33%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters. Nothing explains that 'action' toggles add/remove/list, what form host_or_url takes, or that interval_hours defaults to 24 and is capped at 168. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: repeatedly polling a host's robots.txt to accumulate version history, with the notable scoping constraint that it runs only while Claude Desktop is open. It is clear on its own but never names or contrasts with the siblings an agent would naturally confuse it with, such as robots_txt_check, robots_txt_history, or robots_txt_diff.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for setting up recurring monitoring rather than a one-off fetch, and the parenthetical gives the runtime condition. There is no explicit 'use this instead of robots_txt_check when...' guidance and no statement about when watching is unnecessary.

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