List map connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the scan spans all maps, and critically warns that variable-driven transfers are 'dynamic and cannot be followed, so unreachable is a hint, not proof' — a real false-positive caveat. It does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe cost/pagination, but 'Scan' and the analysis framing make non-mutation clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the scan verb and the output list, followed by a single valuable caveat sentence. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the return contents and the dynamic-transfer caveat, which is exactly what an agent needs. The only gaps are explicit read-only confirmation and performance expectations, which are minor for a single-param analysis tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the mapId description already explains its scoping ('Only list doors on this map; reachability still uses all maps'). The description itself does not mention mapId, so it adds nothing over the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Scan every map's events for Transfer Player commands') and enumerates the exact output: doors with destinations, one-way links, dangling transfers, and unreachable maps. This is clearly distinct from the sibling connect_maps (which edits links) and list_maps (which lists maps), so an agent can differentiate without opening the schema.

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 use case (auditing map connectivity) is strongly implied by the output enumeration, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or naming of alternatives such as analyze_progression or connect_maps. Usage must be inferred from context rather than stated.

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