everlane_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some behavioral context: results are 'capped URL entries' and the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side.' However, it does not explain what 'capped' means in practice, describe pagination behavior, or clarify the output shape beyond 'URL entries.'

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 filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the URL is included for clarity, and the key constraints about child sitemaps and the fixed storefront are each given a brief, purposeful clause.

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 optional-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, where it comes from, how results are constrained, and that the base URL is fixed. It is slightly incomplete in not naming the relationship to everlane_sitemaps or explaining what 'capped' means beyond the limit parameter, but it is sufficient for straightforward use.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their allowed values. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mostly reinforcing the 'type' concept and the capped nature of results.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List Everlane sitemap URLs.' It then clarifies the scope by stating it returns child sitemap URL entries matching a requested type, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like everlane_sitemaps and everlane_products. The fixed server-side storefront URL also removes ambiguity about what domain is targeted.

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 through the phrase 'matching the requested type' and the type parameter, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as everlane_sitemaps. There are no exclusions or direct sibling comparisons, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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