mindmeister_get_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description confirms it's a read operation (GET) and returns metadata, but adds no additional behavioral context such as error handling or permission requirements. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very concise: two sentences plus an Args/Returns block. It front-loads the purpose and uses minimal but sufficient words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained in detail. The description mentions the HTTP method, endpoint, and that it returns a JSON string. Sibling tools are listed, and annotations provide safety info. It lacks mention of error handling for invalid map_ids, but is otherwise complete for a simple retrieval operation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage at the top level (the 'params' property lacks description), but the nested map_id has a description. The description explains the parameter by saying 'params: GetMapInput with map_id (str).' This adds some clarity beyond the bare schema, but does not fully compensate for the lack of top-level description.

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 'Get metadata for a specific MindMeister map' and details that it retrieves full JSON representation including title, nodes, connections, and settings. This distinctly separates it from siblings like get_map_image or list_maps.

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 for retrieving a single map by ID via GET /maps/{id}, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or prerequisites. It is adequate but not explicit.

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