map_get_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral nuance that only manual connections are returned, not auto-generated ones. It also implies a read-only operation via 'Return', but does not mention error conditions or response format. Overall, it adds significant behavioral context beyond a bare statement.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and contents, the second provides a critical caveat and alternative. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, this description is fully complete. It specifies exactly what is returned and explicitly clarifies the scope limitation relative to a sibling tool, which is essential context for an agent choosing this tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly focuses on the return value instead.

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 'Return the current map state' with a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the included elements (nodes, manual connections, stickies, notes). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling map_get_all_connections by explicitly noting that only manual connections are included, which removes ambiguity.

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 note explicitly directs users to map_get_all_connections when auto-generated connections are needed, providing a clear when-not-to-use and an alternative. This is exactly the kind of explicit guidance the dimension seeks.

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