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 full burden. It states the operation is a list (implying a non-destructive read), but it does not disclose details like response format, pagination, or whether it returns only submitted sitemaps or all discovered ones. Given the simplicity, it meets the minimum but lacks extra behavioral context.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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 simple list tool with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., URLs only vs. additional metadata), and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Since the tool is straightforward, a score of 4 is reasonable.

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% for the single parameter siteUrl, which already has a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating 'for a site.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('sitemaps submitted to Google Search Console') and scope ('for a site'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gsc_get_sitemap (which likely handles a single sitemap) and gsc_list_sites (which lists sites).

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 implies a straightforward use case (when you need all sitemaps for a site) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gsc_get_sitemap. No exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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