fetch_sitemap

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond that: sitemap-index chaining up to max_depth, gzip auto-decompression, partial failures returned under 'warnings' without aborting, and SSRF protection. These are valuable edge-case disclosures not present in 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by concise behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value—chaining, gzip, partial failures, SSRF protection—with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does indicate return content (URLs with metadata) and mentions a 'warnings' field for partial failures. It covers main behaviors and error handling, but omits details on complete-failure responses, default values for undocumented parameters, and pagination behavior. Still, for a read-only tool with 8 parameters, it is reasonably complete.

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 50% (4 of 8 parameters described). The description itself does not elaborate on parameters; it only references max_depth indirectly via chaining. It adds no new meaning for timeout, user_agent, max_redirects, or allow_private_hosts, which remain undocumented in both schema and description. This falls at the baseline for mid-coverage.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('sitemap.xml or sitemap-index') and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like fetch_robots or fetch_feed. It also details what it returns (URLs with lastmod/changefreq/priority), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 is so specific that an agent can infer when to use it (whenever a sitemap is needed), and the description mentions partial failures and SSRF protection, which convey reliability context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions.

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