map

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds context: the tool does not render pages, is lightweight, respects robots.txt, and discovered URLs are untrusted. This provides useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 adding value: first states the action, second clarifies non-rendering nature, third provides usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous text.

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's simplicity with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and usage. It mentions the return type (list of URLs) and constraints. Minor gap: the output format could be more explicit, but overall complete.

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 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds overall context about the discovery mechanism (sitemaps and link extraction), which helps interpret parameters like include_glob/exclude_glob. However, it doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema.

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 'Discover all URLs on a website via sitemaps and link extraction' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly noting 'Does NOT render pages' and positioning it as a precursor to crawl or selective fetch.

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 explicitly advises when to use: 'Use before crawl to understand site structure, or to build a URL list for selective fetching.' It also notes constraints like respecting robots.txt and that discovered URLs are untrusted, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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