query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: answers omit empty fields, long lists are truncated unless params.full is true, and actor is used for the log. It could say more about errors or limits, but it adds meaningful context beyond annotations.

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?

It is information-dense and generally front-loads the purpose, but it is written as a sprawling run-on with cryptic phrases like 'whole: params read' and 'actions says what one takes.' The content largely earns its place, but the structure makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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 broad generic read dispatcher with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers valid names, per-read params, discovery behavior, and result trimming. It still lacks explicit output-shape summaries for individual reads and clear usage exclusions.

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 100% descriptive coverage, but the description goes far beyond it by enumerating valid names, distinguishing reads from views, and listing the accepted params for each read. This is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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?

It states a clear core purpose: query with the name of what to read and its params, and with no name return the available names. The 'read the map' framing is unusual, but the enumerated reads/views make it distinguishable from mutation-oriented siblings such as change or draw.

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?

It implies that this is the entry point for reads and explains discovery via an omitted name or the actions view. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it.

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