quince_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well: it reveals that results are capped, that handles are derived from URL paths, that tracking/variant query parameters are stripped, and that product handles align with quince_product. It stops short of explaining pagination, sort order, or potential errors, but for a simple list tool this is meaningful behavioral context.

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 three sentences with every sentence earning its place: the first states the operation, the second defines behavior and scope, the third explains the critical handle-derivation detail with a cross-tool integration note. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of redundant filler.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it clarifies the entity returned ('capped URL entries'), the filtering mechanism (type), and the meaning of a key field (handle). It doesn't fully specify the return shape beyond the handle field, but the description is adequate for an agent to call the tool and interpret basic results.

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, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it explains that the handle field is derived from the URL path and, specifically for the products type, is directly compatible with quince_product's handle parameter. This clarifies how the type parameter influences the output without restating the schema's allowed values.

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 Quince sitemap URLs.' It then clarifies the exact scope — returning capped URL entries from Quince's own sitemaps filtered by type — which separates it from the sibling quince_sitemaps tool and from quince_product. The reference to the 'type' parameter maps directly to the schema's allowed values.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for fetching sitemap URL entries by type, and it supplies a practical usage cue: for type products, the returned handle is exactly what quince_product's handle parameter expects. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the cross-tool integration hint strongly implies the intended workflow.

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