list_maps

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden and explicitly notes the operation is read-only, which is valuable. It also discloses the result surface (metadata only) rather than implying full map contents are returned.

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 tightly organized with a front-loaded summary of the tool's behavior followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds direct value with no filler.

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 listing operation, the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, pagination, and return scope (metadata fields). While no output schema exists and exact response shape isn't detailed, the metadata field list gives an agent enough to understand what to expect.

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%, but the description provides meaningful semantics for all three parameters: search as a text filter on name/description, limit with range and default, and offset as paging. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a specific verb and object: 'List saved maps', and enumerates the metadata fields (id, name, visibility, layer count). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_map, though it doesn't explicitly call out the difference.

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 this is the tool for listing saved maps, which conveys a general usage context. However, it does not state when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead for map detail, dataset search, or feature queries.

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