well_known_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses that both files are fetched and parsed, that absence of security.txt is itself a finding, and that return values include present flags and parsed fields. It does not cover edge behaviors like redirects or network errors, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and each paragraph earns its place by adding context, argument details, or return structure. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is self-sufficient: it explains inputs, the full return dict shape, and domain-specific interpretation. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret results.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section fully defines host with an example and timeout with units ('Per-request network timeout in seconds.'). This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare property names and types.

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 opening sentence names exact verbs and resources: 'Fetch and parse a host's security.txt and robots.txt.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from sibling recon tools focused on headers, DNS, TLS, HTTP methods, etc.

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 gives clear use context by explaining that security.txt is evaluated as a security finding and robots.txt reveals 'admin/internal areas worth noting during recon.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended recon use case is clear.

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