list_map_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state whether the call is read-only, whether it is scoped by robot_sn, whether results paginate or how large the payload may be, nor what happens if a map_id in the list does not exist.

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 text is short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy: it is a duplicated bilingual label with no substantive content. There is no front-loaded information because there is no information.

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 five parameters, only 2 required, three opaque boolean flags, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke this correctly. Nothing tells the agent what to pass, what will come back, or what the optional flags change.

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% across 5 parameters, including three optional include_paths/include_regions/include_positions flags whose semantics (payload size? conditional filtering?) are entirely undocumented. The description supplies no compensating explanation for any parameter.

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 is a bilingual restatement of the tool name, 'List map resources', adding no information about what a 'map resource' actually is. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_robot_maps or get_map_canvas, so an agent cannot tell what entity is returned or why one would choose this over those.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With many list_* and map-related siblings in the toolset, this omission is material.

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