XML Sitemap Generator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only 'valid,' hinting at output validation, but says nothing about limits (e.g., sitemap URL-count caps), return format, or failure behavior.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and output, with zero filler. Every clause adds something: the artifact, the input, and the optional fields.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the description should state what is returned (XML string, file, URL) and briefly describe validation behavior. Those gaps keep it at a minimum-viable level.

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 weight; it names the three optional fields (lastmod, changefreq, priority) and situates them in sitemap semantics, but gives no format details (e.g., lastmod date format, priority range) and never mentions the required 'loc'. Partial compensation only.

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 artifact ('Build a valid sitemap.xml') plus the source input ('from a list of URLs'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like robots_txt_generator or meta_tag_generator, but the unique output artifact makes separation obvious in practice.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools or when this should not be used. The usage context (SEO sitemap creation) is only implied by the tool name and output, so an agent gets no explicit routing help.

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