tooltrace_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 clearly describes the operation pipeline: discovering sitemap URLs, parsing sitemap XML, and returning page metadata. It does not cover failure modes or discovery specifics such as robots.txt handling, but the core behavioral contract is explicit and useful.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists the behavioral steps and return values. Every phrase 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?

For a low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the main input variations (website URL or direct sitemap URL). It omits edge cases like sitemap index files or missing-sitemap behavior, but an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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%, with both 'url' and 'render' fully documented including render's credit costs and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb-and-resource combination: inspect a website's sitemap, discover sitemap URLs, and parse sitemap XML. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by focusing on sitemap-specific outputs (page URLs, last-modified dates, change frequencies) rather than generic extraction or metadata.

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 purpose statement implies that this tool should be used when sitemap information is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives like tooltrace_links or tooltrace_metadata. There are no exclusion criteria or named alternative tools, so the agent must infer usage from sibling names.

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