sitemap_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavior: sampling, HEAD-checking, histogram generation, listing non-2xx. No contradictions. Could detail 'first few' but acceptable.

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 precise sentences. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word adds value. No fluff.

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 simple sampling tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose and output (histogram, non-2xx list). No output schema, but description compensates. Could specify output format, but not critical.

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%, so baseline 3. Description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Merely restates the sampling action.

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?

Specific verb (sample, HEAD-check, aggregate) and resource (sitemap URLs) are clearly stated. Distinguishes from sibling 'sitemap_validate' which likely validates sitemap structure, not URL health.

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?

Implies usage for triaging broken entries in sitemaps. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but context with sibling tools makes it reasonably clear.

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