analyze_source_maps

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds context about what the tool summarizes (original sources, embedded content coverage, likely reverse targets), which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose behavior around edge cases (e.g., invalid source maps), the format of the summary, or any limitations. Given the minimal annotation, the description carries some burden but does not fully meet it.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant wording. Every part contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a read-only analysis tool.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity and no output schema, so the description should explain return values and when to use it. It mentions three output categories (original sources, embedded content coverage, likely reverse targets) but lacks specifics about the output format or what 'likely reverse targets' means. It also omits usage context relative to siblings. This makes it minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions parsing a source map but does not explain the roles of sourceMapUrl and sourceMapContent, nor how they are used together. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description provides no additional semantics, leaving the agent to guess about required input format or interaction.

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 tool's function with specific verbs and a resource: 'Parse a source map and summarize original sources, embedded content coverage, and likely reverse targets.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., search_in_scripts, search_in_sources) by focusing on source map analysis, which none of the siblings explicitly cover.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone, which is not sufficient for selecting among many related tools.

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