add

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

Discloses key behavior (fetches and caches locally), which is helpful. But with no annotations, it could detail more (e.g., idempotency, error handling, authentication needs).

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds helpful use-case context.

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?

Adequate for a simple add tool, but missing info on return value, behavior on duplicates, and error scenarios. No output schema makes this gap more noticeable.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description ties the url to fetching, adding marginal value, but does not elaborate on name or description beyond schema.

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 (add), resource (llms.txt), and method (by URL). It also distinguishes from siblings like del, edit, list, view_content by focusing on creation.

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 says 'Use when the user wants to save, import, or subscribe to an llms.txt', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to alternatives.

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