List sitemaps

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: the exact return shape, the meaning of per-sitemap fields, and a critical deprecation warning about contents[].indexed. This adds significant transparency and does not contradict 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 a single dense sentence that conveys the core purpose, conditional behavior, return shape, field details, and a deprecation advisory. It is efficient but not as cleanly structured as a two-sentence example, hence a slight deduction.

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 lack of an output schema, the description fully explains the return values and important nuances. It also covers error behavior indirectly through the schema (site_url mismatch) and the deprecated field warning, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already provides thorough parameter descriptions for site_url and sitemap_index. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema captures, so the baseline of 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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('sitemaps submitted for a property'), and further specifies the conditional behavior with sitemap_index. It distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_sitemap and delete_sitemap by focusing on reading/listing rather than mutation.

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 implicitly clarifies when to use the tool (to list submitted sitemaps) and adds a specific use case for sitemap_index (listing children). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance.

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