List known 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, and it does disclose the salient traits: this is a lookup of a predefined known set ('OpenGEO knows about') and the response includes usage purposes. It does not clarify whether the list is exhaustive, paginated, or static, but for a zero-parameter read-only reference the key behavior is conveyed.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and adds the one useful detail (what each crawler is used for). No wasted text.

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 trivial zero-param list tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits what separates it from audit_ai_crawlers and gives no hint about return size or ordering. An agent choosing between the two siblings still lacks the deciding detail.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain inputs, and none is given or required.

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 ('List') and resource ('AI crawler user agents') plus scope ('OpenGEO knows about'), and adds that each entry includes its purpose. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling audit_ai_crawlers, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of audit_ai_crawlers as the alternative for actually probing crawlers. The only hint is the verb 'list', leaving the choice between the two sibling tools to inference.

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