list_robot_maps

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: no read-only confirmation, no pagination behavior, no return shape, no indication of what 'maps' contain. It is a label, not a specification.

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?

It is short and contains no filler, which is positive, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 single-parameter list tool this could be adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum say what is returned and how the required serial number is used. Both are absent.

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% for the single required parameter robot_sn; the description never mentions it. The schema supplies only 'type: string' and a title, so the description fails to explain that this is the robot serial number identifying which robot's maps to list.

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 states a verb and resource ('List robot maps'), so the basic purpose is inferable, but it is essentially a bilingual restatement of the tool name with no scope detail. It does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like list_map_resources or get_map_canvas.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list/get tools (list_map_resources, get_map_canvas, list_robots). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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