ContextFetch site map

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world safety, and the description adds real context beyond them: a 1-credit cost, the source precedence (robots.txt before /sitemap.xml), and page-link fallback. It stops short of describing the response shape or what happens when no sitemap exists, so not a 5.

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 dense sentences, zero filler: the mechanism and scope come first, the sibling routing second, the cost last. The 5,000 cap is the only mild restatement of schema.

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 4-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers sourcing, same-site restriction, limit, and billing — enough to call it correctly. It leaves the response format (bare URL list?) implicit, which is a minor but real gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so url, limit, include_paths, and exclude_paths are already documented including ranges and regex semantics. The description only restates the limit cap and that url may be any page; it says nothing about the include/exclude filtering that the schema carries. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: "List a website's URLs without fetching its pages," with the exact sources named (robots.txt sitemap, else /sitemap.xml, plus start-page links). The scope qualifier "same site only" and the limit cap make it unmistakable against page-returning siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Use it to find the right pages before contextfetch_extract_url or contextfetch_crawl," naming both the alternative tools and the sequencing condition. No inference required to pick this tool over its siblings.

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