Discover JavaScript source maps

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the inspection is bounded and it deliberately does not return map contents, setting expectations about the output.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and finished with the key output caveat. 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the non-obvious 'no map contents' behavior. The main residual gap is the missing guidance on the required url parameter's acceptable form.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented structurally. The phrase 'bounded set' only faintly gestures at max_scripts, and nothing explains whether 'url' is a page URL, a script URL, or a domain, leaving the required parameter's expected form ambiguous.

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 names a specific verb ('Inspect'), resource ('authorized JavaScript files'), and target artifact ('sourceMappingURL references'), which clearly separates it from generic crawlers or javascript_endpoint_discovery. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 word 'authorized' implies a scope-approval prerequisite, but the description never states when to reach for this tool versus javascript_endpoint_discovery or web_crawler, nor any explicit exclusion. Usage must be inferred.

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