skims_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 the core behavior: a read of the fixed /sitemap.xml index returning child sitemap URLs, with inferred types. The 'URL is fixed server-side' clause is genuinely useful context about determinism and the absence of inputs. However, it does not address freshness/caching, output structure, or confirm the tool does not traverse into the leaf sitemaps' contents.

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 zero waste. The actionable verb is front-loaded ('List SKIMS sitemaps'), and each subsequent clause earns its place: the data source, the inferred-type behavior, and the fixed-URL design constraint. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: the endpoint source (/sitemap.xml index), the output shape (child sitemap URLs with inferred types), and the rationale for no input. The one notable gap is explicit differentiation from skims_sitemap_urls, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool given the sibling list.

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 schema is empty (0 params, 100% coverage), so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by explaining why no parameters exist — the storefront URL is fixed server-side — and by hinting at the output content (child URLs plus inferred types). Nothing more is needed for a zero-parameter tool.

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 a precise resource: child sitemap URLs from SKIMS's /sitemap.xml index. The mention of 'inferred sitemap types' and the fixed storefront URL give the tool a clear, bounded scope that distinguishes it from leaf-level URL tools like skims_sitemap_urls. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly names a sibling for contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The note that the storefront URL is fixed server-side hints that no parameter is needed, but it does not help an agent choose between skims_sitemaps and skims_sitemap_urls, or among the many brand sitemap tools (allbirds_sitemaps, gymshark_sitemaps, etc.). This is the definition's main weakness.

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