Do I need llms-full.txt?

Not usually. Many sites only need a concise root file.

Can the root file point to the full file?

Yes. That is a common way to keep the root file lean while still exposing broader coverage.

Should both files say the same thing?

They should be consistent, but the full file can cover more pages and detail.

What is the main mistake to avoid?

Using a huge root file when a concise root plus optional full companion would be easier to trust and parse.

llms.txt vs llms-full.txt

A practical comparison of the short root file and the broader companion variant used by larger docs and product ecosystems.

Reference page By llmstxt.ca editorial Published May 24, 2026 Updated May 24, 2026

The core difference

llms.txt is the fast orientation layer. llms-full.txt is the broader coverage layer. The first should stay concise. The second can expand into a larger map of the site.

When the root file is enough

For many product sites, a short file with a summary and a few key links is enough. The goal is not to list everything. It is to route toward the pages that matter most.

When a full variant helps

A full variant becomes more useful when the site has a large docs surface, many product areas, or an API reference that agents may need to traverse more deeply.

Large docs systems often publish both.
The root file stays selective.
The full file expands the available paths.

How they should work together

The root file should still stand on its own. If you publish a full variant, treat it as a companion resource, not an excuse to make the root file bloated or unfocused.

Compare examples: The directory highlights sites that publish one file versus both.

llms.txt vs llms-full.txt

The core difference

When the root file is enough

When a full variant helps

How they should work together

Reference questions.