analyze_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is supplied structurally. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that it fetches the sitemap and issues GET requests to validate a sample of URLs, which hints at side effects and runtime cost, but it says nothing about how many requests, rate limits, or failure handling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a compact Args block; every line carries information. Slightly duplicative of the schema's property names, but nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for an open-world fetch-and-validate tool the description omits meaningful behavior such as sitemap-index recursion, sampling failures, and any indication of what the analysis reports.

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 carry the burden, and it does: sitemap_url is specified as a 'Full sitemap URL' and sample_urls as the 'Number of sitemap URLs to validate with GET requests'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it omits the default value (5) and any bounds on the integer.

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+resource ('Fetch and analyze an XML sitemap or sitemap index'), which an agent can distinguish from list-style siblings like get_sitemaps or write siblings like submit_sitemap/delete_sitemap. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred 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?

No guidance on when to choose this over get_sitemaps, submit_sitemap, or the audit tools. The description says what it does but gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer whether this is for diagnosis, validation, or inventory.

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