check_sitemap

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description confirms 'Read-only' and 'Returns JSON object' but adds limited behavioral detail beyond safety hints, such as rate limits or output complexity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key features. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers the tool's core functionality and scope. Without an output schema, it mentions 'Returns JSON object,' which is sufficient for an agent. More detail on output structure could improve completeness, but it is not missing critical 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds overall context (e.g., categorizes by section) but does not provide parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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 performs live sitemap analysis, discovering URLs and identifying content gaps and depth. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_content_dashboard or check_ai_crawlers.

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 states it works on any public domain without project setup, providing clear context for use. It does not explicitly exclude private domains or mention alternatives, but the scope is well-defined.

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