discover_sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the actual mechanism: it reads robots.txt and probes standard paths (/sitemap.xml, /sitemap_index.xml), and that it works 'autonomously' without a supplied sitemap URL. However, it says nothing about what happens when nothing is found, whether sitemap indexes are followed, request volume/rate behavior, or whether auth-gated sites are handled.

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 tight sentences front-load the purpose and mechanism, followed by a short args block. 'Autonomously' is slightly decorative, but overall there is no wasted prose and the ordering is sensible.

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 the single parameter is documented in the description. What is missing is edge-case behavior (no sitemap found, sitemap index recursion, cross-domain sitemaps), but for a one-parameter discovery tool this is close to complete.

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 does: it explains that base_url is the root domain or homepage URL and gives a concrete example ('https://stripe.com'). That clarifies the expected input granularity (domain, not a deep page URL), which the bare string schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('discovers all active XML sitemaps for a website') and even names the mechanism (robots.txt plus standard location heuristics), so an agent can tell this is a discovery/lookup tool rather than a content extractor. It does not explicitly name the sibling it feeds into, crawl_sitemap, so the differentiation remains implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description suggests a discovery step that would naturally precede crawling a sitemap or deep_crawl, but it never says when to pick this over crawl_sitemap, deep_crawl, or scrape_url. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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