get_sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the exact return fields (URL, status, last checked, indexed count), which is not present in the schema. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth, but for a read-only list operation this is sufficient context beyond annotations.

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 exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is highly scannable.

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 simple tool with only two parameters (one required), full schema coverage, read-only annotation, and a short description enumerating return fields, the description is complete. No output schema is needed because the description states what will be returned. There are no missing behavioral requirements or edge cases.

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%, with both host_id and format fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any new parameter-level meaning; it only references the host concept. Per the rubric, the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

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 'List' with the resource 'sitemaps' and scopes it 'for a host', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_hosts or get_indexing. It also enumerates the output fields (URL, status, last checked, indexed count), making the purpose explicit.

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 the tool should be used when sitemap data is needed for a host, but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools or exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer from 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.