Parse Sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: auto-detection behavior, support for sitemap index files (suggesting recursion), and the exact return fields. This gives an agent confidence about side effects and output scope, beyond what the annotation alone provides.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the main action, then adds three high-value specifics (auto-detect, index files, return fields). No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains what input to provide, what behavior to expect (auto-detection, index expansion), and what the output contains. There is no missing guidance that would hinder correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents the 'url' parameter as either sitemap URL or website root for auto-detection. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('sitemap.xml'), and adds distinguishing details: auto-detection from a website root, support for sitemap index files, and the specific return fields (lastmod, changefreq, priority). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like crawl_site or extract_links.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want URLs from a sitemap.xml or need auto-detection from a site root. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like crawl_site or extract_links, but the scoping is clear enough that an agent can infer the right context. Missing explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance, so not a 5.

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