listMaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content returned (maps with attributes and strategies) but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('All playable maps with layouts, objectives, and modes') and adds supplementary detail ('Includes map-specific strategies and callout locations'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what data is returned but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance). Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally cover more operational aspects to be fully complete.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no additional semantic detail is needed beyond what the schema provides.

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: listing all playable maps with specific attributes (layouts, objectives, modes) plus additional content like strategies and callout locations. It uses specific verbs ('All playable maps') and resources, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from its sibling 'filterMaps' beyond implying this is a comprehensive list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'filterMaps' or other sibling tools. It implies a comprehensive listing but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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