sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose supported formats and nested sitemap indexes, which is useful, but it does not mention truncation/capping behavior or the effect of max_links. The phrase 'ALL pages' may overstate what happens when max_links is not raised.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core source and format details, with no filler. The final phrase 'Pattern sitemap crawlers' adds only minor context, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete, but it fails to document max_links semantics, does not address truncation, and leaves the relationship with crawl and map_site unclear. These gaps could lead an agent to build results incompletely or choose the wrong sibling tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only suggests that url should point to a sitemap-related document; max_links is entirely undocumented and the description can even mislead by implying all URLs are returned regardless of the default cap.

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 the resource and behavior: extracting URLs from sitemap.xml, including .xml.gz files and nested sitemap indexes. It lacks an explicit imperative verb but the Russian text strongly implies the operation and frames the output as a map of all site pages and a feed for crawl.

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 description implies usage as an input feed for crawling and references the sitemap-crawler pattern, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like crawl or map_site, which is a meaningful gap.

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