rebag_sitemaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which explains the lack of a URL parameter, and that it returns child sitemap URLs with inferred types. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, but for a simple read-only listing operation, the given context is adequate.

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, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide relevant details about the output and configuration. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary 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 simple parameterless tool, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the input (none), the source (the /sitemap.xml index), the output (child sitemap URLs with inferred types), and a behavioral note (fixed URL). It could mention that the operation is read-only or safe to call, but that is largely implied. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explicitly stating the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which clarifies why no URL parameter is needed and preempts potential confusion about input requirements.

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 Rebag sitemaps, specifically returns child sitemap URLs from the /sitemap.xml index with inferred types. It names the source URL and distinguishes the action (listing) from the resource, making it distinct from sibling sitemap tools like rebag_sitemap_urls.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rebag_sitemap_urls or other site-specific sitemap tools. It states what it does but does not mention exclusions, conditions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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