map_integrations

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. It does disclose the output content (costs, free tiers, API keys, alternatives, vendor lock-in) and the feature-aware behavior. It does not mention side effects, required context, or return structure, but for a mapping/analysis tool this is reasonably 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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and output contents are front-loaded, and the feature-aware behavior is captured in a compact addendum. Minor truncation ('Feature-aware:' rather than a full sentence) keeps it tight but slightly telegraphic.

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 description covers the tool's output scope and one behavioral nuance, but there is no output schema and no annotations. It doesn't clarify how the mapping is returned, how the required project_type and scale affect results, or how this relates semantically to sibling tools. Adequate for a straightforward mapping tool, 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the features parameter by enumerating example feature areas (AI, chat, video, analytics). It does not add semantic detail for project_type or scale beyond what the schema's enums and short descriptions already provide.

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?

States a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('all third-party services needed') with concrete coverage areas: costs, free tiers, API keys, alternatives, vendor lock-in. The feature-aware note adds categories (AI, chat, video, analytics) that help distinguish it from siblings like recommend_stack or compare_tech.

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 implies when to use it: when mapping third-party services, especially for feature areas like AI or analytics. It also hints that the features input drives service detection. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer how it differs from sibling tools such as compare_tech or analyze_compatibility.

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