fashionphile_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that URL entries are 'capped' and that the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not describe the response format, pagination, error behavior, or any potential side effects, though as a read-only listing tool these may be less critical.

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 and efficient: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide essential constraints (fixed URL, cap on entries). Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it well-structured for quick parsing.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main mechanics: it explains the type-based filtering and the fixed base URL, and the limit parameter is self-explanatory. However, it does not clarify the relationship with sibling tools like fashionphile_sitemaps, which could be relevant for an agent deciding between them, leaving a minor contextual gap.

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%, with both parameters (type and limit) already described in the schema. The description adds minimal extra context, such as 'matching the requested type' and 'capped URL entries', but does not enhance the understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 lists Fashionphile sitemap URLs and specifically mentions returning entries from child sitemaps matching a requested type. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling fashionphile_sitemaps, which likely lists the sitemaps themselves rather than their entries.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It describes what it does (lists URLs from child sitemaps by type) but does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools like fashionphile_sitemaps, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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