bricks_sitemap_analyze

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool parses, detects, finds, and flags, which are read-only analysis actions. However, it does not mention whether it is destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. More detail would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the main purpose and key actions. It is concise, though splitting into bullet points could enhance readability.

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 tool with one parameter, the description sufficiently covers its purpose, input, and outputs implicitly (e.g., results include missing and noindex lists). No output schema is provided, but the description gives enough context for an agent to understand what it does.

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% (the single 'url' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: analyzing XML sitemaps. It specifies distinct actions like parsing URLs, detecting sitemap indexes, finding missing published pages, and flagging noindex pages. This differentiates it from siblings like bricks_sitemap_ping and other SEO tools.

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 usage for sitemap analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bricks_seo_audit, bricks_seo_analyze). The sibling list is large, and without comparison, an agent may misuse the tool.

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