List Maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only enumeration but never states read-only semantics, pagination, ordering, or whether the result is scoped to the current workspace/session. Only the returned payload shape (maps + anchors + screens) is touched on.

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?

A single short fragment with no padding, and the key content (maps, anchors, screens) is front-loaded. It is terse almost to a fault, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the return structure need not be explained, and a zero-parameter list tool is simple. Still, with no annotations the description should say at minimum that this is a non-destructive read and what its scope is; that context is absent.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming no filtering input is expected.

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?

Combined with the name 'list_maps', the fragment 'All maps with their anchors and screens' tells the agent this enumerates map objects and includes their anchors/screens. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and no statement of scope, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_routines beyond the resource noun.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives — for example, whether it should precede tap_anchor or save_anchor, or whether maps are workspace-scoped. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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