gsc_sitemaps

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses a read action but doesn't mention behavioral traits like whether it lists all sitemaps or just submitted ones, rate limits, or authentication needs. Lacks transparency for a listing tool.

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?

Two sentences with clear separation of purpose and parameter detail. No fluff, but could omit 'Args:' label as it's implicit.

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?

With an output schema (from context signals) and a simple single parameter, the description is nearly complete for functional use. However, missing usage guidelines and behavioral context reduces completeness for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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%, but description adds meaning for the only parameter 'site_url' with format examples. It provides more than schema alone, despite coverage stat being misleading due to single parameter. Baseline adjusted for 0 params: 4, but schema already provides type, so description adds moderate value.

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 it lists all sitemaps for a site, with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'sitemaps'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_audit or gsc_inspect_url, which have different purposes, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context like prerequisites (e.g., site must be verified) or when not to use it.

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