analyze_sitemap

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet says nothing about what it does under the hood: whether it fetches /sitemap.xml, follows robots.txt Sitemap directives, resolves nested sitemap indexes, or how it reports 'availability'. 'Analyze availability' is an opaque outcome claim rather than a disclosed behavior.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 network-fetching analysis tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what 'availability' means (existence, validity, fetch success) or what it will receive back, so key information needed to invoke and interpret the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It does clarify that 'url' refers to the webpage (not the sitemap URL itself), which is genuinely useful, but it adds no format, protocol, or protocol-edge details beyond the schema's uri format.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('sitemap availability of a webpage'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like analyze_robots_txt or analyze_canonical. It does not explicitly name any sibling or boundary, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated rather than fully distinguishing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analyze_* crawl tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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