Fetch and parse source map

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

The description mentions that an authenticated fetch context is used, which is a useful behavioral disclosure, and notes that parsing happens locally. However, it does not explain side effects of the network fetch, whether it modifies state, or how failures are handled. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and falls short.

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 a single sentence that efficiently covers the two operational modes without extraneous words. It front-loads the main verbs and is easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly indicating which parameter belongs to which mode.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation support, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the output format, required parameters per mode, or how the fetch context is selected. The description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further investigation.

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 schema has 5 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not map any of them to the two modes. It doesn't clarify the roles of scriptUrl vs sourceMapUrl or the dual sessionId/targetSessionId fields. The only hint is that 'supplied source-map JSON' likely corresponds to mapText, but the description never names parameters.

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 identifies the tool's dual function: parsing supplied source-map JSON or fetching a map via the page's authenticated fetch context and parsing locally. It uses specific verbs and a clear resource, making the core purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sourcemap_parse_v4 or sourcemap_discover beyond implying the fetch capability.

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 gives two usage modes (supplied JSON vs fetching), implying when each path might be appropriate. It does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as sourcemap_parse_v4 or sourcemap_discover, nor does it state exclusions or require prerequisites. This is implied usage at best, lacking explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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