List sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral note that only 'submitted' sitemaps are reported and that processing-pending state is surfaced, but its enumeration of status fields largely overlaps what an output schema would already document.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource comes first and the returned status categories follow compactly. Nothing in it is redundant padding.

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 read-only two-parameter list tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the definition is close to sufficient – the agent knows the resource, the required input, and roughly what comes back. The only real gap is guidance on when this beats get_sitemap, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% – both site_url and sitemap_index are fully documented in the schema, including property-resolution semantics and index filtering. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (list submitted sitemaps) plus the scope of the listing (status, errors, warnings, URL counts), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_sitemap, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'list submitted sitemaps' suggests a survey-all-sitemaps-for-a-site scenario, but the description never says when to reach for this versus get_sitemap, submit_sitemap, or delete_sitemap. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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