url.map

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

The description discloses key behaviors: auto-detection between sitemap and HTML, resolved-absolute URLs, deduplication, http(s)-only filtering, no JavaScript execution, and non-recursive nature. Minor omission: no mention of HTTP request behavior or potential rate limits, but overall very transparent without annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first explains the function, second adds behavioral constraints and parameter hints. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description completely covers what the agent needs to know: input type, output characteristics, limitations, and parameter roles. The output (list of URLs) is implied by the purpose.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'limit' (1-2000, default 200) and 'sameHostOnly' (filters to same-host links). The required 'url' parameter is implicitly described as a page or sitemap URL. Schema coverage from description is high, adding context even though schema has none.

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 discovers URLs from pages or sitemaps, specifies both input types (XML sitemap entries and HTML links), and mentions processed URLs are resolved-absolute, deduped, and http(s)-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like url.clean and url.render.

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 explicitly says it is stateless, non-recursive, and advises re-calling on child sitemaps/pages for deeper crawling. It also provides parameter guidance (limit range, sameHostOnly function), leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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