get_map_infos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'get' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is a key behavioral trait, but the description does not explicitly state safety, return format, or any side effects. It's adequate but lacks detail.

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 with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it maximally concise.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description is the only source for understanding return values. It states the tool gets information about all maps, but doesn't enumerate what that information is (e.g., name, dimensions, events). For a 0-param, get-all tool, it's minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing about the result structure.

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, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameter semantics. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related ambiguity.

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 'Get information about all maps' uses a clear verb (get) and resource (all maps), and the 'all maps' scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_map (singular). However, 'information' is vague and doesn't specify what fields or details are returned, so it's not maximally specific.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_map, get_map_dimensions, or get_map_region, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It's a one-liner with no contextual direction.

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