get_llms_txt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Headlines may be outbound' and 'Do not fetch Hopper' as warnings, but fails to describe side effects, error behavior, or the nature of the response (e.g., text content, potential redirects). The lack of detail on these aspects leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 composed of four short, front-loaded sentences. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by three concise warnings that each add value. There is no redundancy or fluff, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 simple parameterless GET, the description provides the resource and some constraints, but it does not describe the output format (e.g., plain text, JSON) or likely errors. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate by clarifying what the agent will receive, but it omits this. It is adequate for a minimal call but leaves some ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the empty schema. The schema coverage is 100% (it is empty), and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description is consistent with this and does not need to explain any parameters.

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 the action ('GET /llms.txt') and the resource (the public newspaper), with an explicit purpose ('how to cite the paper'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only tool fetching llms.txt, although it does not name the siblings explicitly. The phrasing is specific enough that an agent can identify the tool's role.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_edition, get_feed). The constraints 'Public newspaper only' and 'Do not fetch Hopper' are behavioral restrictions, not usage routing. It does not mention alternatives or conditions under which another tool should be chosen.

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