add_map_contains_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains the node returns True if the key exists and does not return the value, which is key behavior. It also provides an example. However, it doesn't mention side effects like adding a node to the graph or prerequisites (e.g., map variable must exist), but the core semantics are transparent.

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 concise and front-loads the purpose. It includes an example and KB reference without excessive verbosity. Some extra context (chapter number) is useful but could be trimmed. Overall well-structured.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and the description mentions the return behavior, it's partially complete. The missing key parameter explanation is a major gap. It also doesn't specify prerequisites or error conditions. For a simple node-adding tool, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists args with brief meanings (blueprint_name, map_variable, node_position) and gives an example. However, it does not explain how the key to check is provided—there is no key parameter in the schema or description, which is a significant gap. It also doesn't clarify the node_position format or default 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 tool adds a Map CONTAINS node and its purpose is to check if a key exists. It distinguishes from related siblings by explicitly saying it does NOT return the value and points to FIND, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear use case (existence check) and explicitly mentions an alternative (FIND for value retrieval). It references a chapter and KB for context. However, it does not enumerate all sibling alternatives (e.g., add_map_keys_node) or state when not to use this tool, so it's not fully explicit.

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