filterMaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'essential for mode-specific strategies,' which hints at its utility but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether it returns a list of maps, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or if it requires authentication. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates beyond its basic purpose.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameters, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for effective use. It covers the purpose and filter types but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, which are crucial since no annotations or output schema exist to fill these gaps.

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 description adds some meaning by specifying the filter criteria ('game mode' and 'queue type') and listing examples ('convoy/convergence' and 'competitive/casual'), which aligns with the enum in the input schema. However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter fully, so the description provides only marginal additional context without explaining parameter interactions or usage nuances.

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 tool's purpose: 'Filter maps by game mode (convoy/convergence) or queue type (competitive/casual).' It specifies the verb 'filter' and resource 'maps' with filtering criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'listMaps' or 'searchPlayer' that might also involve map-related operations, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'Essential for mode-specific strategies' suggests this tool should be used when planning strategies based on game mode or queue type. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives among sibling tools, such as clarifying if 'listMaps' returns all maps without filtering.

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