util_docs_site_map

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but fails to do so. It does not explain if the tool performs external requests, requires certain permissions, or details the output format, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence with no waste, but it is too brief to be effective. While concise, it lacks the structure to convey necessary details.

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?

Given the open-ended input schema and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to specify arguments, or any constraints, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has a generic 'arguments' object with 0% property coverage. The description mentions 'crawl hints, docs links, feeds, and likely reference sections' but does not link them to any parameter structure or explain how to provide these inputs.

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 maps a docs surface and mentions specific elements like crawl hints, docs links, feeds, and reference sections, which differentiates it from sibling tools like util_sitemap_probe and util_links_extract.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for appropriate use, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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