map_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool does not read the pages ('without reading them'), reveals the sitemap-first strategy and fallback to on-page links, and notes performance ('Fast and cheap'). This gives the agent a good understanding of what the tool does and its non-intrusive nature, though it could further clarify return format or potential side effects.

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 compact two-sentence structure that front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage guidance and performance notes. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy. It is optimally concise.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, method, and use case. It does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., a list of URL strings), but that is inferable. The absence of error handling or edge case descriptions is minor given the simplicity, making this a highly complete description.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions (url and limit), so the description doesn't need to repeat them. The description adds no additional parameter-related context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers all parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Discover' with a clear resource ('a site's URLs') and method ('from sitemap.xml, falling back to on-page links'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_url and score_url by emphasizing non-reading and planning for crawling. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 states a clear use case: 'use it to plan which pages to read or crawl next.' This provides context without explicitly naming alternative tools. It implies when to use this tool (as a planning step) but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, so it falls shy of a 5.

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