ms_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral detail: calling with no args shows the entire map, passing an entity lists all methods for that entity. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the 'you are here' metaphor, helping the agent understand what output to expect without overcommitting.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. The informal metaphors ('you are here', 'big picture') are engaging but slightly less precise than formal wording. Still, every sentence earns its place and the structure is efficient.

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 both invocation modes (no args, with entity) and its role as an orientation tool. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return format. It could benefit from listing all valid entities, but the map itself will provide that, so it's complete enough for the agent to call it correctly.

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 0% (the one parameter 'entity' has no description), so the description carries full responsibility. It explains that entity is a string representing a business entity (e.g., 'reviews', 'stocks', 'prices', 'orders') and that passing it filters the map to that entity. This fully compensates for the gap and gives concrete examples.

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 it is a map of business entities and their methods, with a specific verb ('call') and resource ('the whole map'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the orientation tool before guessing, which differentiates it from search/describe tools.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use it ('before guessing') and how to use it (no args for whole map, entity for specific). It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use, but the 'before guessing' instruction implies it's the first step, which is sufficient guidance for this orientation tool.

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