netintel_sitemap_parser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload ('all URLs with metadata including lastmod and priority'), but is silent on failure behavior when no sitemap exists, whether discovery follows robots.txt, redirect handling, or result caps for large sitemaps.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core capability is front-loaded and the return-value note follows immediately.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and roughly what comes back, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of the edge cases (empty sitemap, non-XML input, size limits) that would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 0% and the single parameter is named only 'url'. The phrase 'auto-discover it from a domain' partially compensates by signalling that the input may be a bare domain rather than a full sitemap URL, but it does not confirm accepted formats or whether paths are allowed.

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 (parse), a specific resource (XML sitemap), and an alternate acquisition path (auto-discover from a domain). The resource name differentiates it from near neighbors like netintel_robots_txt and netintel_rss_parser, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to alternatives such as netintel_robots_txt (to find sitemap locations) or netintel_page_extract (to pull content from resulting URLs). An agent must infer usage entirely from the verb and resource.

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