submit_sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention key behaviors: automatic deduplication and regex filtering. However, it omits other important behavioral aspects such as the effect of limits, the skip_already_submitted flag, and what happens on submission (e.g., success/failure responses). It provides some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, the second highlights key behavioral features. It is 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and two key features, but it lacks contextual information about return values, error handling, or the role of parameters like app_name and apex_mode. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description does not fully round out the operational context, so a mid-range score is warranted.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds a high-level overview of deduplication and regex filtering, which aligns with skip_already_submitted and filter_pattern. However, it does not add significantly more meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 tool's function: 'Parse and submit URLs from a sitemap.xml file.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool submit_urls by specifying the sitemap input source. It uses a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_urls. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where the tool is appropriate. The only implicit hint is the sitemap reference, but it fails to clarify the decision boundary between this and the sibling URL submission tool.

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