list_maps

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses an important structural rule ('Each concept note belongs to exactly one map') and implies read-only behavior via the name and purpose. However, it does not describe return format, ordering, or other potential behavior, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing distinct value: what the tool shows, when to use it, and a constraint on the data. The first sentence is slightly awkward grammatically but not wasteful. Overall, concise and 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?

For a parameterless listing tool, the description is quite complete: it explains the output (maps and their concept notes), the intended usage scenario, and a key data rule. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return format (e.g., list vs. tree) and any pagination or limits, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose and output rather than parameters, which are nonexistent.

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 function: listing every Map of Content and the concept notes that call it home, effectively providing an overview of the collection's structure. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_notes and get_note by focusing on the overall map-level structure rather than individual notes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'orient before searching' or to answer 'what does this collection cover?'. This gives clear context for when this listing tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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