List User Maps

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

The description's only behavioral claim, 'None (read-only)', restates what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so it adds no value beyond structured data. It says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the list is scoped to a domain/user, which for an unpaginated list endpoint would be genuinely useful.

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?

Two short labeled lines, front-loaded with the endpoint and side-effect profile, with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the bold headers add mild ceremony for such a small payload.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it does not — no mention of the shape of a user-map entry, ordering, or pagination. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the agent still cannot predict the response from this definition.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify that the empty schema does not already imply.

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 states the underlying endpoint (`GET /v1/user-maps`) and the title 'List User Maps' identifies the verb+resource, but the description body itself never says what a user map is or how this list differs from `fortimail.users.maps.get` or `fortimail.users.list`. It is a minimal, endpoint-anchored statement of purpose rather than a distinguishing one.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as `fortimail.users.maps.get` for a single map or `fortimail.users.list` for users. The listing intent is only inferable from the title and path, so the agent gets context but no routing guidance.

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