url.map

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: stateless, no JavaScript, non-recursive, auto-detection, absolute URL resolution, deduplication, and http(s)-only. It also explains parameter effects. There is no contradiction.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists key constraints and parameters. Every phrase adds value; no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, input parameters, limitations, and behavior comprehensively. The agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well by explaining limit's range and default, and sameHostOnly's function. However, it could elaborate more on what 'keeps same-host links' entails (e.g., filtering behavior).

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 'Discover' and the resource 'URLs a page or sitemap points at'. It distinguishes between XML sitemap entries and HTML links, and lists key features (auto-detected, resolved-absolute, deduped, http(s)-only). This differentiates it from sibling tools like url.clean or url.unfurl.

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 explicitly notes 'Stateless, no JS, NOT a recursive crawler — re-call on a child sitemap/page to go deeper', which tells when to use (single fetch) and when not (no recursion). It also explains the limit and sameHostOnly parameters, but lacks explicit references to alternative tools for recursive crawling.

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