list_mindmaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('JSON string'), the scope ('metadata only'), and lists the fields included. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements, which is a minor gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a return type clause. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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's simplicity (no parameters), the description adequately covers the core behavior. It describes output fields and distinguishes from get_mindmap. However, it lacks details on potential edge cases (e.g., empty result, maximum items) that could be relevant for an agent.

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% (trivially). The description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that standard by focusing on the output.

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 'List mindmaps where the bot is assigned (metadata only)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_mindmap' by explicitly stating that nodes are not included.

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 not to use this tool ('Does NOT include nodes') and directs to an alternative ('use get_mindmap to read the full node tree'). This provides clear guidance on selection.

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