seo_sitemap_generator

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds further behavioral details: runs locally, read-only, non-destructive, no external service calls, idempotent, rate-limited (30/60 req/min), and describes return values (serialized XML, entry count, byte size, warnings). No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is concise yet thorough, using bullet-like structure within paragraphs. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then covers behavioral details, usage guidelines, and return values efficiently.

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 the parameter complexity (4 params, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description still fully explains inputs, operations, edge cases (warnings for invalid values, limits), and the nature of the tool (non-destructive, idempotent). It is complete without relying solely on schema or annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds valuable context beyond the schema. It explains the 'operation' enum values, that 'urls' entries must have a 'loc' field, that 'alternates' triggers the xhtml namespace, and describes warnings for invalid dates, changefreq, priority, and protocol limits.

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 clearly states 'Sitemap Generator (Build XML Sitemap From URL List)' and explains two operations: generate and generateIndex. It explicitly says what the tool does not do (crawl, fetch, discover URLs), distinguishing it from related tools like seo_robots_txt_generator and seo_hreflang_generator.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use seo_robots_txt_generator to control crawler access and point at the finished sitemap, or seo_hreflang_generator when you only need standalone alternate-language tags.' It also states that the tool does not crawl or discover URLs, only formats provided entries.

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