Sitemap Probe

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the tool is 'fast' and 'may expose x402 utility pricing'. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description aligns with these and adds pricing behavior, which is valuable for an agent.

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 long with no redundant words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides relevant context about utility pricing. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, achieving excellent conciseness.

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?

Although the tool is simple with two parameters, there is no output schema description. An agent would benefit from knowing what the tool returns (e.g., whether it returns a list of URLs, status codes, or parsed sitemap data). The description is adequate but could be more complete for an agent to fully understand invocation results.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('url' and 'timeout'). The description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 checks sitemap and crawl-structure hints to see how a site exposes crawlable structure. It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource ('sitemap and crawl-structure hints'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like util_robots_inspect or util_docs_site_map.

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 mentions it is part of Delx Agent Utilities and may expose x402 utility pricing, providing context but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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