get_robots_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 only states the purpose and does not reveal whether a network request is made, how missing robots.txt files are handled, or any error/rate-limit behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one self-explanatory parameter, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral context makes it minimally adequate but not fully complete. It covers the core purpose but leaves structural questions unanswered.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the 'url' parameter. However, the description does not mention the parameter at all or add any meaning beyond the schema's basic type and name. The parameter is self-evident, but the description fails to add context like expected format or examples.

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) and resource (robots.txt rules for a website), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on scraping, crawling, or diagnosing, as none specifically target robots.txt.

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 the tool is for retrieving robots.txt rules, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like scrape_url or crawl_site, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not differentiated.

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