thebodyshop_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful traits: results are 'capped,' entries come from 'child sitemaps,' and 'the storefront URL is fixed server-side.' However, it does not explain the response shape, truncation behavior beyond the limit cap, or any rate/size limits. It adds some value but leaves the no-annotations gap partially unfilled.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: the first states the core action, the second explains the source and filtering mechanism, and the third adds a fixed-constraint note. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and 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 two-parameter listing tool with both params fully documented in the schema, the description covers the key operational facts: source domain, child-sitemap mechanism, type filtering, the output cap, and the fixed storefront constraint. The main gap is that no output schema exists, so the return format is not described beyond 'URL entries' — a minor omission for a predictable URL-listing tool.

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% — both 'type' (with allowed values) and 'limit' (default 50, max 250) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds marginal context by clarifying that type selects which child sitemap to pull from, but it does not add syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'List The Body Shop sitemap URLs' — and adds a distinguishing mechanism: it returns 'capped URL entries from child sitemaps matching the requested type.' This implicitly differentiates it from siblings like thebodyshop_sitemaps (which likely returns the sitemap index rather than URL entries) and thebodyshop_products/pages (which fetch entity data). However, it does not explicitly name any sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 implies usage context — when you need URL entries from The Body Shop sitemaps filtered by type (all, products, collections, pages, etc.) — but it never states explicit when-to-use guidance or names alternatives like thebodyshop_sitemaps. An agent is left to infer when this tool is preferred over the generic sitemap tool or entity-specific tools.

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