skims_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: results are capped, entries come from child sitemaps, and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. However, it does not describe error behavior, invalid type handling, or response characteristics beyond 'URL entries'.

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 no filler. The action is front-loaded ('List SKIMS sitemap URLs'), followed by the key scoping constraint and a note about the fixed storefront URL. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array of strings vs objects with lastmod), nor the meaning of the 'other' type value. An agent could call it correctly but would be uncertain about the response shape.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents type and limit. The description adds some context ('capped' relates to limit, 'matching the requested type' relates to type) but no syntax, format, or edge-case details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('SKIMS sitemap URLs'), and adds scope by specifying it returns capped URL entries from child sitemaps matching a requested type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skims_sitemaps (likely the sitemap index) and other skims_* tools.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not name sibling tools like skims_sitemaps or skims_products, nor any exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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