extract_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool handles sitemap indexes and returns metadata, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds return details. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the input (sitemap URL), boundaries (handles indexes), and output (URLs with metadata). Missing explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters (url, max_urls). The description adds context about sitemap indexes and return metadata but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: extracting all URLs from a specific sitemap file, including sitemap indexes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like discover_sitemaps (which finds sitemaps) and full_crawl (which performs a broader crawl) by specifying it acts on a given sitemap URL.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a specific sitemap URL) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Siblings are listed but not contrasted, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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