get_robots

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions the HTTP method and source, but does not clarify read-only behavior, response format, or any potential side effects. The phrases 'Not tax advice' and 'Headlines may be outbound' are nonstandard and do not communicate typical operational traits.

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 core instruction is front-loaded and clear, but the inclusion of 'Not tax advice' and 'Do not fetch Hopper' adds irrelevant or ambiguous content that could distract the agent. It is short, but not optimally lean.

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, no-parameter GET endpoint, the description sufficiently identifies the resource and scope. Although it omits expected return structure, the purpose (robots.txt) makes that implicit, and the provided cautions are not critical.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter details, but that is unnecessary as there are none; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 /robots.txt') and the resource ('from the public newspaper'). It is distinct from sibling tools which target other resources like editions or feeds, and the method and path are explicit.

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?

While it emphasizes 'Public newspaper only' and 'Do not fetch Hopper', it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_edition, get_feed). The conditions for choosing an alternative are absent.

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