sitemap

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

Describes the tool's behavior (reading proxy history, grouping, counting) and output format. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose potential side effects, auth needs, or limits. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state non-destructive nature.

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?

Fairly concise and front-loaded with the action. The output format is well described, but some minor redundancy or missing details slightly reduce clarity.

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 output schema exists and the tool has two parameters, the description provides some context but lacks explanation for page_size and usage scenarios. It covers the structure but misses completeness for a 2-parameter 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?

Description explains host_filter as a regex for scoping, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage). However, page_size is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear. Description covers only one of two parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds a sitemap from Burp proxy history, groups entries, counts occurrences, and returns a specific tree-style JSON. This distinctly describes its function and differentiates it from sibling tools like dedup_* or search_history.

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?

Provides some context by noting there is no upstream Target tool, implying it's the sole sitemap builder. It mentions using host_filter for scoping, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide explicit when-not scenarios.

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