list_maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (a dict with 'maps' mapping), which is helpful and goes beyond a bare statement. However, it does not mention side effects or permissions, though for a read-only list this is less critical.

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 brief but includes a Python-style return format that may be less intuitive. It is not excessively long, but the structure could be more streamlined for an AI agent. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the return documentation could be clearer.

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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: what it does and what it returns. No essential information is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline is 4 according to rubric, and the description correctly omits parameter info.

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?

Description clearly states it lists CARLA maps supported by CarlaMCP. Specific verb 'List' and resource 'CARLA maps', making the purpose unambiguous. No siblings overlap, so differentiation is naturally clear.

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 implies usage through its purpose statement but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. Given no parameters and no competing tools for listing, guidance is minimal but acceptable.

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