qradar_get_reference_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation retrieves data and returns a JSON string, implying a safe read operation, but it does not mention error behavior for a missing map, permission requirements, or pagination edge cases. Some behavioral context is present, but the disclosure is incomplete.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, three parameter bullet points, and a returns line. Every sentence earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple getter with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details completely. It could be more complete by noting how to discover Reference Map names or what happens when the map does not exist, but these are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate fully for the parameter docs. It does: 'name' is specified as the exact map name, 'limit' as the maximum entries with default, and 'offset' as the starting pagination index. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve key-value entries of a specific Reference Map.' This clearly distinguishes it from nearby sibling tools like qradar_list_reference_maps by scoping to a single map, and from qradar_get_reference_set by naming the different resource type.

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 the use case—when you need key-value entries from one Reference Map—but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as qradar_get_reference_set or qradar_list_reference_maps, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no misleading guidance, but the context is not spelled out.

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