Analyze a sitemap

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive). The description adds scoping context – same-origin only, 'bounded' inventory, and authorization classification – but is silent on rate limits, redirect handling, or what 'bounded' concretely means.

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 the action verb first and no filler. Dense but readable; it earns its place, though 'bounded' is an unexplained term.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The definition is adequate for a read-only analysis tool, but the unexplained 'bounded URLs' and total absence of parameter guidance leave real gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% for 2 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. Neither 'url' nor 'sitemap_path' (including its default '/sitemap.xml') is mentioned, leaving the agent to infer both from names alone.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (sitemap) plus concrete actions: inventory URLs and distinguish authorized from external entries. This meaningfully separates it from generic crawlers like web_crawler, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 on when to use this versus the many adjacent tools (web_crawler, robots_txt_analysis, gau_url_discovery). The 'same-origin sitemap' phrasing implies a scope but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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