rottentomatoes_sitemaps

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 states that the tool returns 'the live sitemap index and every named child sitemap', which communicates the live, aggregate nature of the response. It does not, however, mention response size, output format, or rate-limit considerations, which would have made it more complete.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('sitemap discovery') before detailing the returned content. The enumeration of child sitemap types is informative without being bloated. Every clause contributes value.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool, the description accounts for the main thing an agent needs to know: what the tool returns and the scope of content covered. It lacks an explicit pointer to how the output should be used (e.g., feeding a chosen sitemap into rottentomatoes_sitemap_urls), but given the simple read-only nature and no output schema, the description is largely complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to document nonexistent parameters. No additional parameter semantics are needed or expected.

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 resource (Rotten Tomatoes sitemaps) and what it returns (the live sitemap index and every named child sitemap), enumerating the content categories. It is specific enough to understand the tool's function at a glance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling rottentomatoes_sitemap_urls, which is a closely related alternative.

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 opening phrase 'Rotten Tomatoes sitemap discovery' implies the intended use case: discover all available sitemaps. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rottentomatoes_sitemap_urls, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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