Get Sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' plus the read-oriented framing (status and error counts) makes the read-only, non-destructive nature apparent, but permissions, whether an unsubmitted or unprocessed sitemap returns an error, and rate-limit behavior are all undisclosed.

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 tight sentence with the resource and the returned content front-loaded. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and the two parameters are fully documented in the schema. For a simple single-resource read this is nearly complete; only the usage routing against list_sitemaps/submit_sitemap siblings is missing.

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%: feedpath is documented as a full URL with an example and site_url as a property identifier. The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one sitemap), plus what it returns: processing status and error counts. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the plural sibling list_sitemaps, though it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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: an agent can infer this is for inspecting a single already-known sitemap rather than enumerating them, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (e.g. the sitemap must have been submitted), and no named alternative such as list_sitemaps.

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