Read and resume saved maps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does substantial work: it says results are bounded, pages return summaries, map returns metadata/context, and changes compares saved hashes with local files. It also communicates resumption behavior. It does not cover error/conflict semantics or pagination mechanics in detail, but the read-only nature and result shape are conveyed.

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 key directive and uses a compact structured list to explain resource behaviors. There is no filler; the only slightly obscured line is 'mmap_view remains the picture,' but it is short and not bloating.

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?

This is a 15-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description gives a useful high-level map of resource behaviors and resume guidance. It does not describe output shape, pagination/conflict behavior, or how filters combine, so it is adequate but not complete for fully autonomous invocation.

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 only 47%, and the description compensates mainly for the resource parameter by explaining what each resource returns. It adds little meaning for filter/pagination parameters such as limit, cursor, status, direction, depth, and fields, leaving a significant portion of the 15 parameters semantically under-described.

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 frames the tool as the read/resume operation: 'Read existing pages before creating a map' and 'Returns structured IDs, revisions and bounded results.' It also enumerates resource-specific reads (pages, map, nodes/edges/layers, neighborhood, changes), which makes the core purpose concrete. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings beyond a cryptic nod to mmap_view, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage context: read before creating a map, and resume existing effort for new conversations or compacted context. It also distinguishes read intent from viewing via 'mmap_view remains the picture.' It stops short of fully explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives like mmap_open.

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