rothys_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious behaviors: results are 'capped' and the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side' (explaining the absence of a URL parameter). It stops short of describing the output format, the precise cap semantics, or behavior when the type parameter is omitted.

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?

Two sentences with the main action front-loaded and operational constraints (capping, fixed storefront) in the second. The inline URL 'https://www.rothys.com' is slightly redundant given it is fixed server-side, but it confirms the target storefront without bloating the description.

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 low-complexity tool (2 optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers purpose, source scope, capping, and the fixed storefront. Remaining gaps are the unspecified return format, the absence of a stated default for the type parameter, and no reference to the sibling rothys_sitemaps, leaving it adequate but not fully self-contained.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the type filter ('matching the requested type') and the capping notion tied to the limit parameter, but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema. The fixed-storefront note does add useful context for why no base-URL parameter exists.

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 Rothy's sitemap URLs') and narrows scope to 'child sitemaps matching the requested type,' which implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling rothys_sitemaps tool that lists sitemaps themselves. The 'Rothy's's' typo is minor and does not obscure meaning.

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 use case is implied: an agent needing URL entries from Rothy's child sitemaps, filtered by type, would select this tool. However, the description never names the closely-related sibling rothys_sitemaps or any alternative, and gives no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the boundary between listing sitemaps and listing their URL entries to inference.

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