crawl_sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does deliver real behavioral detail: streaming parsing, gzip decompression, namespace handling, and automatic recursion into sitemapindex children. It does not disclose failure behavior for malformed or unreachable sitemaps, whether network fetches are rate-limited or respect robots.txt, or whether max_urls caps results globally or per child sitemap.

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 capability summary is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args list keyed to the parameters. The 'High-Speed' label is mild marketing filler, but there is no redundant or rambling prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are covered. What is missing for a network-crawling tool is behavioral edge context: error handling, recursion depth limits, and how it relates to the sibling discover_sitemaps 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: sitemap_url with a concrete URL example, max_urls with its purpose and default, and crawl_nested with its sitemapindex semantics. The only gap is the ambiguity of whether max_urls applies to the total extracted set or to each nested sitemap.

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 opening line names a specific verb ('Streams and parses') and resource ('XML sitemaps'), and adds scope details: namespaces, .xml.gz gzip streams, and sitemapindex recursion. An agent can tell this is a sitemap parser rather than a general scraper, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with close siblings like discover_sitemaps or deep_crawl.

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 never states when to choose this tool over discover_sitemaps (which presumably locates sitemaps) or deep_crawl. The only implied guidance is that the caller must already have a sitemap URL in hand, which has to be inferred from the required parameter rather than read in the text.

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