map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses the method (sitemap + link extraction) and output format (newline-separated list). However, it does not cover potential issues like rate limits, authentication, or behavior when sitemap is missing. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is sparse.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the core action and output. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 4 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough information to use the tool effectively. It explains the output format, which is not in the schema. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, slightly reducing completeness.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning the newline-separated output format. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Discover URLs on a site via sitemap.xml + root-page link extraction.' It specifies the method and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'crawl' or 'scrape' which have different behaviors.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to siblings. While it mentions the method, it lacks context on when 'map' is preferred over 'crawl' or 'extract'. The sibling tool names are given but no differentiation is described.

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