extract_sitemap_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal automatic recursive expansion and dead link filtering, but it does not state whether network requests are made, what limits or failure modes exist, or what happens to unreachable or malformed sitemap URLs.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with a useful cost parenthetical. Every phrase adds a distinct behavior or constraint, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and only generic parameter descriptions, this tool description leaves critical gaps. An agent does not know the expected payload structure, the return format of the hierarchy, or whether the tool performs network fetches, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the schema descriptions are generic. The tool description adds the useful inference that the payload likely contains a sitemap URL or XML content, but it still does not specify the exact payload format or how paymentSignature is used beyond settlement.

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 identifies a specific operation: recursively parsing XML sitemaps, with explicit sub-behaviors such as gzipped index expansion and dead link filtering. This makes the tool's purpose obvious and distinguishes it from generic parsing siblings like parse_rss_atom_resilient or extract_structured_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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives or what conditions it is best suited for. The only implicit usage hint is the 'high-speed' claim, but there are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling parser tools.

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