Sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing supported sitemap sources and the max_links cap, though it does not mention auth requirements or rate limits.

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 KOGDA/CHTO/NE structure is compact and front-loaded. Each line earns its place, with no redundant explanation.

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?

The rich annotations and output schema mean return format and safety notes are covered. The description handles usage and alternatives well, but the undocumented url parameter keeps it from being fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that max_links caps the number of URLs, but the required url parameter is never explicitly defined or given a format, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 WHAT clause states a specific resource and scope: URLs from sitemap.xml, .xml.gz, and nested sitemapindex, up to max_links. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming map_site and crawl for different needs.

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 KOGDA and NE sections give explicit when-to-use conditions and alternatives: use for a full page list, crawl feed, or domain check; if no sitemap use map_site; for texts use crawl. Nothing is left to inference.

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