List sitemaps

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by detailing the output fields (URL, type, last access date, URL count, error count, discovery source), which is particularly useful since there is no output schema. It gives a concrete sense of what the tool returns beyond the read-only flag.

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, front-loads the core action and result set, and includes a useful usage directive. Every clause earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and expected granularity. The simple tool shape (2 optional params, no nested objects) means this description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It also fits logically among sibling tools without ambiguity.

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% — both 'hostId' and 'limit' have descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so no elevation is warranted.

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 begins with a specific action and resource: 'List the Sitemap files Yandex knows for the host.' It clearly enumerates the fields returned, distinguishing this from sibling tools like recrawl_status or get_indexing. This is a precise, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 states the intended use: 'Use it to check a sitemap is being read and is error-free.' It provides clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases. The added 'Read-only' note reinforces safe usage.

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