list_maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List maps' implies a read-only operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, the requirement for campaignId, or the shape of the returned list. It does not contradict annotations because none exist.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Two words that restate the tool name add no value beyond the name itself.

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 tool with two parameters, one required, and no annotations or output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits the campaign-scoping requirement, possible pagination semantics, and any indication of the return format, all of which are needed for correct 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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of either parameter. The required campaignId and optional page are completely undocumented, leaving an agent to guess their meaning from names and types.

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 'List maps' is a verb-plus-resource statement, but it merely restates the tool name with no added detail, making it a tautology. It does not specify the scope of maps (e.g., maps within a campaign) or explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_map, relying only on the plural form to imply a collection operation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_map or other list_* tools, nor does it indicate that campaignId is required to scope the listing.

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