Check the llms.txt map a site offers to AI

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that links are followed and classified as page, redirect, or nothing, and explains the failure mode ('rots silently'). It doesn't state rate limits, auth needs, or how results are returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with the action, then the rationale, then the usage triggers. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, and usage for a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. It could add a note on how findings are surfaced given no output schema, but otherwise nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'url' and 'maxLinks' are already documented with examples and bounds in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read/check/follow) on a specific resource (/llms.txt) and enumerates what is verified: H1, summary, sections of links, and link liveness. This distinguishes it from siblings like audit_site or compare_sites, which are broader checks.

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?

Explicitly names three triggering scenarios: validating a site's llms.txt, diagnosing wrong-page quotes by assistants, and pre-publication checks. It also conveys the implicit 'when not' by framing this as the targeted llms.txt-specific tool versus general site audits.

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