get_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions 'smart' and filtering, without disclosing any behavioral details like request behavior, error handling, or limitations. It does not contradict anything, but is insufficient for understanding execution characteristics.

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 sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose. The example is useful and earns 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?

Given a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral context, though output schema covers return values.

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. It only explains 'keywords' with an example; 'url', 'limit', and 'timeout_profile' are not described. This adds some value but leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 states 'Smart Sitemap Discovery and Filtering', identifying the resource (sitemap) and actions (discovery, filtering). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like crawl_site or scrape_url, though it does not explicitly compare.

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 example 'e.g. team, about for finding people pages' implies a use case for filtering, but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. The context is clear for basic use but lacks explicit guidelines.

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