gsc list sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns processing status and counts, which is output content rather than behavior. It does not disclose any non-obvious behavior such as pagination, rate limits, or whether only explicitly submitted sitemaps are listed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 states the core action and key output details without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with two optional parameters and an output schema (though not shown here). The description covers the main function and the type of data returned. Given the annotations and schema richness, nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (siteUrl and sitemapIndex) with clear descriptions, including the default for siteUrl. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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 action (list sitemaps) and the scope (submitted for a Search Console property), and mentions the output includes processing status and counts. It implicitly distinguishes from gsc_get_sitemap (singular) through the plural 'sitemaps' and 'list' verb, but does not explicitly name alternatives. It is specific and unambiguous.

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: if you need to list all sitemaps for a property, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like gsc_get_sitemap for a specific sitemap, nor does it discuss the optional sitemapIndex filter's role. Usage context is present but implicit.

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