map_readiness_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It states 'checks' but does not clarify whether the tool mutates state, its idempotency, error behavior, or authorization needs. This lack of detail leaves critical safety gaps for a tool that could potentially modify maps.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it may be too concise, lacking necessary detail, but that is reflected in other dimensions.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what 'visual-readiness contract checks' entail, how results are communicated, or how to interpret failures. The description is not complete enough for reliable agent use.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate. Agents are left to infer meaning from names (rootPath, profile, etc.) without guidance, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 runs final visual-readiness contract checks for maps, specifying it occurs after map_validate. The verb 'Run' and resource 'maps' are clear, and the positioning after map_validate distinguishes it from related tools like map_validate.

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 says 'after map_validate', providing concrete guidance on when to use this tool in the pipeline. However, it does not mention when not to use it or discuss alternatives, limiting completeness.

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