thebodyshop_sitemaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the source, the fixed server-side URL, and that sitemap types are inferred. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, though it could clarify the exact return shape or potential inference limitations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds precise technical detail about the source and return content, making every sentence earn 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 simple zero-parameter sitemap listing tool, the description is largely complete: it names the site, the index path, the return content, and the fixed-URL constraint. The absence of an output schema means the description could slightly expand on the exact return format, but the core is covered.

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 empty schema provides no semantic guidance. The description adds value by stating the storefront URL is fixed server-side, explaining why no parameters are required and preventing the agent from expecting a configurable domain.

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 verb and resource: "List The Body Shop sitemaps." It further specifies that it returns child sitemap URLs from the site's `/sitemap.xml` index with inferred sitemap types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `thebodyshop_sitemap_urls` that likely return page-level URLs.

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: it is the tool to call for listing The Body Shop's sitemap index. It also notes the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which tells the agent no URL parameter is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer a sibling like `thebodyshop_sitemap_urls`.

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