qradar_list_reference_maps

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly frames the operation as a listing call and states the output is a JSON string, but it relies on the verb 'List' to imply read-only behavior and does not disclose filter behavior, pagination semantics, or error/authentication expectations.

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 front-loaded purpose sentence, clearly separated Args and Returns sections, and no filler. Every line earns its place by adding a parameter label, a default, or the return shape.

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 list operation with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource, covers all parameters, and states the return shape. It falls short of complete because filter-expression semantics are absent and there is no pointer to related list tools, leaving selection under-informed.

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, but the Args lines mostly restate the parameter names and schema defaults. 'Optional filter expression' gives no syntax or operator details, and 'maximum number of maps'/'starting index' only lightly gloss what the names already imply.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('List') and names a concrete resource ('Reference Maps') with a clarifying gloss ('key-value lookups'). It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings like qradar_list_reference_sets or qradar_list_reference_tables, so it misses full top-caliber clarity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as qradar_list_reference_sets, qradar_list_reference_tables, or qradar_get_reference_map. The Args/Returns sections describe mechanics but provide no usage context, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria.

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