List sitemaps

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety and external-state aspects. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by stating exactly what the tool returns—timestamps, error/warning counts, and per-content-type counts—and how sitemapIndex changes the result set.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by explaining the optional parameter behavior without repeating schema details.

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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information about return contents and the special sitemapIndex behavior. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter formats, so nothing critical 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% for both parameters, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description largely restates the sitemapIndex behavior already in the schema, adding only the phrase 'child sitemaps' and 'top-level submissions' as clarifying vocabulary.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the sitemaps submitted for a property,' and further specifies the returned metadata (timestamps, counts, per-content-type values). It also clarifies the sitemapIndex variant, which distinctively separates top-level listing from child-sitemap listing.

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 clearly states the main use case and explicitly explains when to pass sitemapIndex to list child sitemaps instead of top-level submissions. It does not name alternative sibling tools like get_sitemap or submit_sitemap, but the context is clear and the parameter guidance is practical.

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