brooklinen_sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that the response includes inferred sitemap types. It does not comment on read-only behavior, error conditions, or output details, but for a zero-parameter fetch tool the disclosed behavior is reasonable.

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?

Two compact sentences lead with the action and resource, then add the key technical detail (source index and inferred types). Every sentence contributes value; there is no padding or 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter, fixed-storefront tool, the description covers the essential context: source URL, what is returned, and the fact that input is not configurable. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying what 'inferred sitemap types' means or what the output items look like, but the absence of an output schema makes the current level sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by explaining that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which clarifies why no user input is needed and reinforces that the schema is intentionally empty.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('Brooklinen sitemaps'), and a precise return value ('child sitemap URLs from Brooklinen's /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from related siblings like brooklinen_sitemap_urls, which would enumerate actual page URLs rather than the sitemap index children.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: an agent can infer it should call this tool when it needs the list of child sitemap URLs from Brooklinen's sitemap index. However, the description does not mention alternatives, when not to use it, or how it differs from brooklinen_sitemap_urls, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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