cc_robots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that the data is a snapshot from the crawler's visit ('каким его увидел краулер в момент обхода'), which is valuable temporal context. However, it does not mention whether the output is raw content or parsed directives, any rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core definition, and the second adds a practical use case. Every word earns its place, making it well-structured for quick consumption.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description covers the basic purpose and one use case but omits parameter semantics entirely and provides no comparison with siblings. The unexplained 'crawl' parameter is a significant gap for a 2-parameter tool, making the description incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain parameters. The word 'домена' implicitly references the domain parameter, but the optional 'crawl' parameter (likely a crawl ID) is completely unexplained. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level detail.

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 that the tool provides the domain's robots.txt as seen by the crawler at crawl time, which is specific and identifies the resource. It also adds a diagnostic use case ('Объясняет, почему сайт мог выпасть из индекса'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might also explain index drops, so it is clear but not distinguishing.

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 usage when investigating why a site might have dropped from the index, giving a clear context. But it offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like cc_errors or cc_dynamics, so an agent gets only an implied usage scenario.

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