sitemap_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses what the tool returns: URL count, format (XML/index/text), sample URLs, last modified dates, and issues like duplicates or missing lastmod. This gives the agent a good sense of the tool's behavior, though it doesn't mention potential errors or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the purpose and key outputs, the second explains input formats. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers purpose, input handling, and return fields, making it adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly. Minor omissions like error handling do not significantly impact usability.

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% with the url parameter already described. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that passing a domain automatically checks /sitemap.xml, which is not explicitly in the schema. This enhances the agent's understanding of how to format the input.

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 specific action ('Validate a sitemap.xml file') and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_tags, robots_txt, and readability, which target different SEO/website aspects.

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?

It gives clear context on how to invoke the tool: pass a domain to check /sitemap.xml, or pass a direct sitemap URL. Though it doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of sibling X', the purpose is specific enough that the usage context is clear.

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