list_ai_crawlers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the description usefully discloses the returned fields and scope, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, ordering, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It gives the resource, scope, and return fields efficiently.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the crawler list and the operator/purpose fields. Minor missing context includes output ordering or whether the list is exhaustive, but nothing essential prevents correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and correctly focuses on the returned crawler list instead.

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 and resource: 'List the AI / search crawler user-agents this server checks, with operator and purpose.' The scope ('this server checks') and return fields ('operator and purpose') make clear it is a reference listing of crawler identities, not a site or robots checker like the sibling tools.

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 by explaining that the server checks these crawlers and that operator/purpose are returned, but it does not explicitly say when to call this versus check_robots or check_site, nor does it state any exclusions. The use case is inferable but not guided.

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