sitemap_extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: SSRF protection (refuses private/loopback/link-local/cloud-metadata addresses, re-validates redirects), optional recursion, and return of lastmod/changefreq/priority. It stops short of describing error handling or output format.

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, dense with critical information, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every clause earns its place, covering functionality, safety, options, and return values without waste.

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 no output schema, the description gives a good overview of behavior, constraints, and return fields, which is sufficient for a moderately complex tool. It lacks an explicit description of the return structure, but the expected output (parsed sitemap entries with optional metadata) is inferable. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is only 17%, but the description adds meaning to multiple parameters: 'url' (public HTTPS), 'xml' (paste raw XML), 'recursive' (expansion of sub-sitemaps), and 'include_metadata' (returns lastmod, changefreq, priority). It does not explicitly explain max_urls or max_sub_sitemaps, but their names and schema constraints are self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('fetch and parse') and clearly identifies the resource ('XML sitemap or sitemap index'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all text/format utilities, by focusing on web fetching and parsing.

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 clear usage context: fetch from a public HTTPS URL or paste raw XML, with optional recursive expansion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the unrelated sibling set, the context is sufficient.

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