sitemaps_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool lists submitted sitemaps, implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'status' values are possible. The word 'submitted' adds some scoping, but other behavioral traits are 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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately understandable. It earns its place without any fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format, the meaning of 'status', or how the engine and feedUrl parameters affect results. Given the list operation's moderate complexity, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent for invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'for a site' which loosely maps to siteUrl, but it does not elaborate on the engine or feedUrl parameters. Since the schema already describes these parameters, the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'submitted XML sitemaps and status' for a site. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sitemaps_submit and sitemaps_delete, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you need to view submitted sitemaps and their statuses, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sitemaps_submit or sitemaps_delete. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so it falls to implied usage.

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