analyze_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (robots.txt rules, sitemap details, URL counts, freshness analysis, recommendations) and its role as a first-step analysis tool. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which would be beneficial for a tool with no 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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, listing outputs in bullet-like format, and ending with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (analyzing sitemaps with multiple outputs) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering what the tool returns and its purpose. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential outputs like error states or limitations, which would help the agent handle edge cases better.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (baseUrl, includeSitemapUrls, maxUrls) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how maxUrls affects processing or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 the tool analyzes robots.txt and XML sitemaps, listing specific outputs like robots.txt rules, sitemap discovery, URL counts, freshness analysis, and job board recommendations. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_page, check_urls, and crawl_site by focusing on sitemap analysis rather than page-level or broader crawling tasks.

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 explicitly states 'Use this as a first step to understand site structure before crawling,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It positions this tool as a precursor to crawling or auditing tools like crawl_site, plan_audit, or run_audit, helping the agent choose this over alternatives for initial site assessment.

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