Fetch and parse robots.txt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output content (user-agent groups, sitemaps, crawl-delay) but does not disclose edge-case behavior such as missing robots.txt, HTTP errors, or redirect handling. It adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Fetch') and lists the return values concisely. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what it does and what it returns. It lacks details on potential errors or status codes, but for a direct robots.txt fetch-and-parse tool, the information is largely complete for an agent to use 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?

The schema covers the single parameter siteUrl with a clear description ('Any URL on the site'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, but this is unnecessary since the schema is fully self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a site's robots.txt and returns parsed data (user-agent groups, rules, sitemaps, crawl-delay), using a specific verb and resource. It unambiguously distinguishes itself from siblings like parse_sitemap and extract_links.

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 is for inspecting robots.txt rules, and the sibling tool names provide contextual alternatives (e.g., parse_sitemap for sitemaps). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.

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