seo_sitemap_parse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic fallback behavior (/sitemap.xml, then robots.txt) and handles both sitemap index and URL set types. However, it doesn't disclose things like rate limits, network behavior, or what happens on missing sitemaps, though the fallback note does provide meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: the first states core purpose and capabilities, the second enumerates analysis dimensions, the third explains input flexibility and fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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 exists, the description lists the analysis dimensions (counts, freshness, duplicates, protocol, compliance) which helps the agent anticipate return content. With 1 simple parameter, no nested objects, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a single-input read-only analysis tool. Could mention return format slightly more explicitly but adequate.

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% and the sole parameter 'url' is well-documented, including the note that it accepts any page URL. The description adds the automatic /sitemap.xml discovery behavior on top of the schema, providing some value beyond what's already there. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool parses and analyzes a website's sitemap.xml, listing specific capabilities (URL counts, lastmod freshness, duplicates, protocol consistency, compliance). The verb 'parse and analyze' plus the resource 'sitemap.xml' is specific and distinct from sibling SEO tools which target meta tags, headings, links, keywords, and page speed.

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 explains the tool automatically tries /sitemap.xml and falls back to robots.txt, which clarifies input requirements (can provide any page URL). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this vs alternatives, but the specialized sitemap focus makes the use case clear given the sibling tool names.

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