webmaster_list_user_sitemaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read and that the cursor is an exclusive identifier, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention ordering, cursor lifecycle, rate limits, or relationship to other sitemap operations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key action is stated first. It is compact but somewhat terse, leaving room for more semantic detail without becoming verbose.

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 paginated read operation, the description provides a reasonable baseline with the cursor behavior and page concept. However, with no annotations and zero parameter description coverage, the absence of any mention of host_id, limit, or alternative tools leaves notable gaps for an agent selecting and invoking this 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 0%, and the description only adds meaning for the cursor parameter by calling it an exclusive identifier. It does not explain host_id, the required parameter, or limit, leaving most parameters to be interpreted from their names alone.

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 identifies the operation as reading a page of submitted sitemaps and mentions an exclusive identifier cursor, which conveys pagination. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool webmaster_list_sitemaps, despite the different 'user' scope in the name.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of webmaster_list_sitemaps or webmaster_get_sitemap. The phrase 'one page... with cursor' implies a paginated reading use case, but no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions are provided.

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