List maps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the output content (maps with raid duration, player count, enemy types) and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a simple list tool these are unlikely to be concerns. It adds the specific return fields, which is useful beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and immediately enumerates the included data fields. It contains no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 2 optional parameters, no required ones, and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the return value (a list of maps with specified attributes). It does not describe how lang/gameMode affect output, but the schema covers that. Given the simplicity of a list operation, nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as both parameters (lang and gameMode) are documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so it relies on the schema. Per the calibration rule, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') with a specific resource ('all Escape from Tarkov maps') and enumerates the included attributes (raid duration, player count, enemy types). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like get_map (which likely returns a single map) and list_hideout_stations (which covers a different resource).

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—'List all maps' signals it is for retrieving the full set—but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus get_map for a specific map. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so the guidance is only implicit.

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