webmaster_list_sitemaps

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation is a read and that one 'page' is returned, but it does not explain pagination behavior, what the cursor represents, whether parent_id changes scope, or what the response contains. This is thin transparency for a 4-parameter API tool.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is under-specified rather than usefully concise, and the jargon phrase 'upstream sitemap identifier cursor' reads as unclear rather than 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?

Given 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and many sitemap-related siblings, the description is not complete enough. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still omits the required host_id, pagination usage, parent_id semantics, and selection criteria among sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds a partial clue about 'cursor' (an upstream sitemap identifier), but it says nothing about the required host_id, the semantics of limit, or the role of parent_id. It does not provide enough parameter context for correct invocation.

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 names a verb ('Read') and a resource ('sitemap page'), so it is not a tautology. But 'one sitemap page' and 'upstream sitemap identifier cursor' are ambiguous: it is unclear whether this lists paginated sitemaps for a host or reads a single sitemap entry, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like webmaster_get_sitemap or webmaster_list_user_sitemaps.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool versus sibling sitemap tools, nor any statement about required host_id or how pagination should be driven. The phrase 'using the upstream sitemap identifier cursor' implies a prior step, but no usage context or alternative is given.

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