Show Sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response includes full status and a per-content-type breakdown, which is meaningful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about what happens when the sitemap is not registered or not yet processed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (status, per-content-type breakdown, one sitemap) carries information.

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 read-only tool with a fully documented schema, this is close to adequate, and the hint about the per-content-type breakdown partially compensates for the missing output schema. What is missing is how it relates to the list/add/remove sitemap siblings and any error or empty-state behavior.

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 100% and the schema already explains that site_url must be the exact GSC property URL from wsp_list_websites_gsc, including the domain-property nuance. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Full status and per-content-type breakdown for one sitemap" names the resource (a single sitemap) and the kind of data returned (status plus per-content-type breakdown). The phrase "for one sitemap" implicitly separates it from the plural listing sibling wsp_show_sitemaps_gsc, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation relies on the agent noticing the singular/plural contrast.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite ordering (e.g. list sitemaps first via wsp_show_sitemaps_gsc), and no exclusions relative to wsp_show_status_gsc or wsp_show_website_gsc. Usage is only inferable from the word "one".

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