omni_map_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the operation is a read and that it depends on a prior onboarding step, which is useful. However, it does not disclose failure modes for missing or invalid file paths, whether the tool returns raw file contents versus metadata, or what happens when the map is not yet onboarded.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Read specific documents') before giving usage direction. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple read tool with fully documented optional parameters, this description gives enough context for an agent to choose and invoke it: the prerequisite, the use case, and parameter examples are all present. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the return shape would improve completeness, but it is not a blocker 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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds a useful example for the `files` parameter and echoes the omit-to-list behavior, but it does not materially expand on the schema's semantics beyond that.

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 action ('Read specific documents') and the resource ('a map's agent context pack'), and it distinguishes this tool from omni_map_onboard by framing it as a follow-up lookup tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely named siblings like omni_map_filemap or omni_map_changelog, which leaves some ambiguity about which tool handles file listing or change-log-specific reads.

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 explicit usage sequencing: 'Use omni_map_onboard first; use this for targeted lookups afterwards.' It also provides concrete examples of when to invoke it (troubleshooting file, change log). It stops short of listing when not to use it versus sibling map tools, so it is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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