get_sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds that it returns a list with status and details, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any rate limits, pagination, or specifics about the configured site, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by a brief return statement. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is complete. It states what it returns ('List of sitemaps with their status and details') and clarifies the scope ('configured site'). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by stating 'for the configured site,' which implies no parameters are needed because the scope is predefined. This helps agents understand why the tool requires no arguments.

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+resource: 'Get all sitemaps for the configured site.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like submit_sitemap and delete_sitemap, which perform different actions. The 'Returns' line adds clarity about the output.

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 (you use this when you need to retrieve sitemaps) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools or conditional guidance, so it relies on the inherent clarity of the name and context.

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