docs_add_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal useful behavior — bounded crawl via maxPages, conversion to Markdown, local storage — but says nothing about required auth (docs_auth exists as a sibling), rate limiting, handling of existing sources, or what happens when the crawl fails partway.

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 short sentences: what it does, mechanical effect, and when to use it. The purpose is front-loaded and no sentence repeats the schema or the tool name.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main flow adequately but omits permissions, storage location, deduplication/overwrite behavior and post-crawl verification. Those gaps are meaningful for an agent deciding how to sequence this with docs_auth and docs_preview.

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%, so every parameter including maxPages, urlPattern, name, sourceId and description is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the implicit note that maxPages bounds the crawl, 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+resource ('Crawl an entire documentation site from its sitemap.xml') and explains the pipeline (scrape, convert to Markdown, store locally), which naturally distinguishes it from the URL- and spec-based siblings. It never names an alternative outright, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Use for adding complete doc sites' gives the intended context, but there is no when-not guidance and no mention of docs_add_url, docs_add_swagger or docs_add_openapi, which an agent must choose between for other source types. Usage is implied by the sitemap framing rather than explicitly scoped.

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