list_maps

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description correctly spends its space on things annotations cannot express: newest-first ordering, the returned fields, the exclusion of temporary and downloaded runtime maps, and the fact that imports silently add saves. The last point is genuinely non-obvious behavioral context; only pagination or size limits are missing.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and ordering, followed by the fields returned and then the exclusion/side-effect caveat. Three sentences, each earning its place, though the field enumeration could be compressed slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by naming the returned fields (name, id, path, size, last-written) plus ordering and exclusions. For a zero-argument, read-only list tool this is essentially everything an agent needs to call and interpret it 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter text and instead spends the space on return-shape semantics, which matters more here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the saves in the game's save list') and clarifies that 'maps' means saves, which resolves the mild name/description mismatch. It stops short of differentiating from nearby siblings like inspect_map, which inspect a single map rather than enumerate them.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration semantics, but the description never says when to pick this over inspect_map or editor_open_map, nor any prerequisites. An agent can infer it is the discovery step, but the guidance is left to inference.

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