Refresh VIPMP sitemap

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it takes ~30 seconds over ~80 pages, fetches from a specific source, and details the processing steps. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description reinforces this with no contradictions.

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 concise yet informative, with a clear structure: a main paragraph on what it does, a bullet list of conditions for use, and a final line on performance. Every sentence adds value.

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 parameters, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, behavior, performance, and safety. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema coverage is 100% effectively. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description provides sufficient context for the tool's operation.

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 that the tool rebuilds the sitemap by fetching from Adobe's sitemap.xml, processing pages, merging tags, and persisting the result. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its unique function.

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 explicitly lists conditions for use: seeing 404s on known pages, picking up new pages, or when the hand-curated sitemap is stale. It also notes it is safe to run repeatedly and provides a time estimate.

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