site_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that no page content is fetched, but says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, result caps, or how deeply the site is traversed.

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 a one-line purpose followed by a tight list of use cases; every sentence earns its place. The Args block is slightly redundant with a single self-evident URL parameter but does contribute the format example.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool this covers the essentials of invocation, but with no output schema the description should sketch what comes back (a URL list, whether sitemap.xml and discovered links are included, approximate limits). That return-shape gap keeps it at minimum-viable-plus.

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 0%, and there is only one required parameter, so little is needed. The Args block adds a concrete URL format example ("https://example.com"), which helps slightly beyond the bare string schema, but it does not clarify whether scheme, subdomain scope, or trailing paths affect discovery.

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 resource ("Discover all URLs on a website") plus a clear scope boundary ("without scraping their content"). The phrase "ahead of a crawl" further signals how this differs from content-fetching siblings, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives four concrete use cases: sitemap audits against sitemap.xml, finding unindexed pages, understanding site architecture, and sizing a site before a crawl. It never states when NOT to use it or names an explicit alternative tool, but the "ahead of a crawl" framing implies the handoff to a crawl tool.

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