site_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the URL cap (1,000), the returned fields (lastmod, source), the absence of page content, the per-call cost ($0.0025 USDC), and p99 latency (8000ms). These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs to budget and sequence calls.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the operational details (params, cost, latency). Every clause is informative, though the trailing "Params / Cost / Latency" run-on packs several distinct facts into one sentence and could be broken up for faster scanning.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value — and it does (URLs with lastmod and source, no page content). Combined with the cost, latency and cap disclosures, an agent has everything needed to invoke and budget the call correctly.

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 only 50% (max_urls has no schema description), and the description compensates by giving max_urls its range (1 to 1000) and default (200), plus clarifying that url accepts "site or domain" and is required. It does not, however, explain what happens when max_urls is hit or ordering of results, so it stops short of full semantic coverage.

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 and resource (list URLs of a website) and immediately qualifies the scope: robots.txt, sitemaps, sitemap indexes and homepage links, capped at 1,000 same-site URLs. It explicitly contrasts with the read-oriented siblings (web-read-batch, site-crawl), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Names both when to use it ("a cheap first step to decide which pages to read") and the alternatives it feeds into (web-read-batch, site-crawl). It also states an exclusion — "Returns no page content" — which prevents misuse as a content-fetch tool.

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