omni_map_guide

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly conveys this is a read-only reference guide, states that it mirrors the omnimod resource, and gives session cadence. It does not explicitly state the return format, but for a zero-parameter knowledge tool the content and usage are sufficiently transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's identity and content, and the second provides usage timing plus the alternative tool. Every part earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema knowledge tool, the description is complete: it explains what the guide covers, when to read it, and which sibling offers the condensed version. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. No parameter documentation is needed because there is nothing to pass, and the description adds no parameter details without needing to.

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 a specific purpose: a complete professional map-development master guide, and enumerates its content areas (8-phase workflow, command surface, functions, testing, verification, handoff). It also differentiates itself from the compact summary provided by omni_knowledge, so an agent can tell what this tool offers.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('Read this once per session before building a map') and names the alternative for a lighter summary ('use omni_knowledge(topic="mapdev")'). This is direct and actionable selection guidance.

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