gymshark_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that results are 'capped' (limited) and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling for invalid types, or the structure of the returned URL entries. For a read-only listing tool, this is moderate coverage but could be more explicit about pagination or default behavior.

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 redundancy. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the cap and fixed-storefront constraint. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, the types of sitemaps, the cap behavior, and the fixed storefront. Missing details like return format or error behavior are minor given the simplicity, though an agent might wonder about the exact structure of URL entries. Overall, it provides enough to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of 'type' (matching requested type) and 'limit' (capped entries), but adds little beyond what the schema already describes. It does not provide format details or examples for the parameters. The 'fixed storefront' note is behavioral, not parameter-specific. Thus, the description adds minimal extra value over the schema.

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 Gymshark sitemap URLs and specifies it returns capped entries from child sitemaps matching a requested type. It distinguishes the action (listing URLs) and resource (Gymshark sitemaps) well, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'gymshark_sitemaps' tool, which might serve a similar purpose. The mention of the fixed storefront URL adds specificity.

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 implies usage for fetching sitemap URLs of a particular type but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gymshark_sitemaps or other Gymshark product/page tools. It doesn't mention exclusions or conditions that would make another sibling more appropriate. The type parameter is self-explanatory, but no context is given for choosing this over related sitemap tools.

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