web_sitemap_generator

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

The description discloses an important behavioral aspect: it can accept a homepage URL and auto-check standard sitemap paths. However, since no annotations are provided, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, though 'fetch and parse' implies no side effects.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers the main functionality and parameter flexibility. However, since no output schema exists, it only hints at the output ('extracting all listed URLs') without specifying the format (e.g., array of strings). This is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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%, and the schema itself provides detailed parameter semantics (e.g., accepting homepage URLs). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already conveys, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Fetch and parse' and the resource 'sitemap.xml URL', with the outcome 'extracting all listed URLs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_extract_links or web_rss_parser, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only states what the tool does without contextual usage advice.

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