getMapReleaseInfoByUserId

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a basic 'get' operation. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or what kind of data will be returned. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation implied by the verb.

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 a single sentence and is concise without unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified in terms of clarity, but this dimension focuses on appropriate sizing and front-loading, which it satisfies.

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?

Given the simple schema and lack of output schema, the description should explain the tool's role clearly. It fails to clarify the discrepancy between the tool name 'ByUserId' and the actual parameter 'contentId' (map ID). It also doesn't hint at what 'release info' includes, making the description incomplete for practical use.

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%, with each parameter described in the schema (limit, offset, contentId). The description only says 'use map ID', which mirrors the schema's '地图ID' description for contentId. It adds no additional meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema already provides full parameter semantics.

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 provides a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (地图发布信息/map release info), and it specifies the input method (使用地图ID/use map ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list maps by user ID, comments, favorites, etc. However, the term '发布信息' is slightly vague, and the tool name says 'ByUserId' while the description says to use map ID, introducing ambiguity about the actual input key.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or relationships to sibling tools like getMapInfoByUserId or getMapCommentListByUserId. There is no context about which scenarios call for this tool.

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