wb_map

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

The description explains what the tool returns cognitively (a map/orientation) and how to use it, which supplements the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds context about the entity parameter and 'you are here' positioning, so agents understand the tool is a discovery utility with no side effects.

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 with the key idea, followed by concrete invocation guidance and a closing recommendation. Every sentence adds value and none are redundant.

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 read-only map tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It explains the two valid invocation patterns and conveys when to use the tool before exploring other methods.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter has no description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining the default behavior ('Call with no args') and giving representative values like entity='reviews', plus indicating that other entity names map to the same pattern.

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 a specific purpose: a capability map that lists business entities and the go-to methods for each. It also distinguishes itself from operational tools by describing the 'big picture' orientation function.

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 clear usage context: call with no args for the whole map, or pass an entity to list its methods, and 'use this before guessing.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intent is obvious enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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