add_map_keys_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does state that the tool 'Returns an array of all keys in the map.' However, it does not disclose side effects of adding a node to the blueprint, potential errors if the map variable is invalid, or whether the node requires compilation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the argument list compact. The KB reference and example add practical value without excessive verbosity.

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 straightforward node-adding tool with an output schema, the description covers all parameters, states the return behavior, and provides an example. It is complete enough to call correctly, but lacks explicit peer differentiation and error-case detail.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by documenting all three parameters: blueprint_name, map_variable, and node_position. It adds useful meaning like '[X, Y] graph position' and the example shows a realistic invocation, though it does not explicitly note that node_position is optional.

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 specific action: 'Add a Map KEYS node - copy all Map keys to an Array.' It is distinct from related map operations by naming KEYS and the copy-to-array behavior, though it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives like add_map_values_node.

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 provides an implied use case: 'Used to iterate over all entries in the map,' which tells the agent when this node type is relevant. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over closely related siblings such as add_map_values_node or add_map_find_node.

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