sitemap_parse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure for both urlset and sitemapindex, the maxUrls parameter limits, and the effect of maxUrls on sitemapindex. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but the behavioral details are sufficient for a fetch/parse 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?

The description is three concise sentences, each serving a purpose. The first sentence states the core function, the second details the output, and the third gives usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains the two possible return shapes. It covers the main behavior for both sitemap types and parameter constraints. Missing are details on error cases (e.g., invalid URL) but overall complete for 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 schema has 100% coverage, so the description adds value beyond the schema. It provides meaningful context for the 'maxUrls' parameter (default 100, max 1000, not applicable to sitemapindex), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 verb ('Fetch and parse'), the resource ('XML sitemap'), and the specific types handled ('urlset or sitemapindex'). It also gives concrete use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other formats.

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 provides clear usage context ('enumerate all pages', 'find recent updates', 'build crawl queue') and notes that it avoids loading raw XML. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies alternatives for non-sitemap content.

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