Site Security Txt

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable transparency: it does not follow contacts, does not execute JS, and uses a bounded cache when fresh=false. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states core purpose and limitation. Second sentence covers usage for both parameters. The call to action and rationale are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable.

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 an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage constraints, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits. No gaps for a straightforward parse tool. Fresh parameter guidance adds operational completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters. The description adds meaning: for 'url', it reinforces 'absolute public HTTP(S)' and implies validation (SSRF rejection is in schema but not restated). For 'fresh', it explains the caching trade-off more clearly than the schema's description, elevating from baseline 3.

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 the verb 'Parse' with resource 'public security.txt fields', clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like site_robots or url_metadata. It also adds a key constraint ('without following contacts'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit context for use: 'Use only for public HTTP(S) resources' and clarifies limitations (no JS, no access control bypass). It offers guidance on the fresh parameter with concrete cache reuse advice. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools for when not to use.

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