parse_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and external access. The description adds specific behavior: following sitemap index files and returning metadata. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured data.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. No unnecessary words, each sentence earns its place. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 description explains what it returns and mentions following index files, but it does not specify the response structure (e.g., JSON array/object) and has the misleading 'all URLs' claim. Given no output schema, more detail on format and limit behavior would help. Adequate but with gaps.

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 is 3. However, the description says 'Returns all URLs' which contradicts the limit parameter that caps results. This misleadingly misrepresents the effect of limit, actually detracting from parameter understanding. The description adds negative value here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch and parse') and resource ('sitemap.xml'), states what it returns (URLs with metadata), and mentions ability to follow index files. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like parse_robots_txt by focusing on sitemap handling.

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?

It provides a use case ('Useful for SEO audits and content discovery') which gives context, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving room for ambiguity about selection vs. other parsing tools.

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