Get Sitemap Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needed to add context such as behavior when the sitemap is missing or auth requirements. It adds none of that, merely restating the read action with no new behavioral detail.

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 zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise given the tool's context.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and read-only status need not be repeated. However, for a tool sitting among list/submit/delete siblings, the description omits the routing guidance an agent needs to pick it correctly.

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% with two well-documented parameters including a concrete feedpath example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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?

States a clear verb (get) and resource (a specific sitemap's details), which distinguishes it from the plural list_sitemaps_tool and the mutating submit/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, and 'details' stays vague about what is actually returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_sitemaps_tool (e.g., when you already know the feedpath) or what prerequisites exist. The 'specific sitemap' phrasing implicitly requires an identifier but never states the condition for choosing this tool.

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