get_sitemaps

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

The description proactively lists the returned fields (path, last submitted/downloaded, pending status, error and warning counts), providing clear expectations without relying on annotations. It implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate for a 'get' verb, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or required permissions. Given no annotations exist, the description effectively covers the tool's behavior.

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 a single, well-crafted sentence that begins with the verb and places important output context in parentheses for quick scanning. It contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 straightforward listing operation with one parameter, the description is largely complete, covering both the input context and the output expected. The only notable gap is the lack of distinction from the 'enhanced' sibling, which could be important for an agent deciding between them, but this does not undermine the core completeness for the tool itself.

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 input schema already includes a detailed description of the siteUrl parameter, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the neutral baseline 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?

The description clearly states the action 'List all sitemaps submitted for a property' and includes specific output fields in parentheses, making the purpose immediately obvious. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_sitemaps_enhanced', so it doesn't fully meet the bar of distinguishing from 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_sitemaps_enhanced' or 'manage_sitemaps', nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the description itself, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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