crpt_map

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

The description discloses the tool's read-only, exploratory behavior through the map metaphor, which complements the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds that calling with an entity filters the map, providing behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The metaphor 'you are here' adds a slight flourish but doesn't bloat it. Each sentence earns its place; it's efficient without being terse.

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 read-only map tool with an output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the type of output (map or method list). It doesn't need to enumerate all entities since examples are given. The presence of an output schema means the return format is already specified elsewhere.

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 only defines an optional 'entity' parameter with a default empty string. The description enriches it by explaining the parameter accepts entity names (e.g., 'reviews', 'stocks') and that passing it lists all methods for that entity. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: it maps business entities to their go-to methods, acting as an orientation aid. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the 'map' versus specific method actions. The usage examples ('entity=reviews') and the 'you are here' metaphor make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly advises to use this tool 'before guessing' and explains two usage modes: no args for the whole map, or an entity argument to list methods of that entity. While it doesn't name specific alternative tools, the guidance to use it first is clear. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the context suffices.

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