gsc_list_sitemaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Lists' clearly signals a read-only operation and 'submitted' scopes the data, but the description does not mention output shape, pagination, auth/verification requirements, or edge cases. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the verb, scope ('all'), qualifier ('submitted'), and platform ('Search Console') are all relevant and front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It makes clear what the tool returns (a list of submitted sitemaps) and what it operates on (a site in Search Console). It stops short of describing return fields or no-results behavior, but an agent can invoke it correctly based on available information.

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% for the single siteUrl parameter, including an example format. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('all sitemaps submitted'), a scope ('for a site'), and a platform ('Search Console'). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like gsc_get_sitemap (single sitemap) or gsc_submit/delete_sitemap (write operations).

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 word 'Lists' and the scope 'for a site' imply a read-only listing use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so usage guidance is mostly inferred.

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