List Sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all sitemaps' clearly indicates a non-destructive read operation, and 'with indexing stats and health classification' tells the agent what kind of results to expect. This is sufficient transparency for a simple list tool.

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 no filler words. Every phrase adds meaning: the action, scope, and result contents are all present.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and result type. It lacks usage differentiation from siblings, but that is a minor gap for such a simple list operation.

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 single parameter site_url is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a property' loosely maps to that parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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') with a clear resource ('all sitemaps for a property') and adds outcome details ('indexing stats and health classification'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sitemap or submit_sitemap.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sitemap (which likely targets a single sitemap) or submit_sitemap/delete_sitemap. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names.

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