Get iNavi Maps SDK Documentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Markdown return format, the two accepted input forms, the link-to-docId behavior for referenced types, and the omission of method-level examples. This is strong behavioral context, though it does not cover errors or auth.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then adds prerequisite, link semantics, and example-routing in a compact, purposeful way. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers return format, input variants, prerequisite browsing, and the relationship to get_map_example. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already fully documents docId. The description reinforces the dual input forms and the list_sdk_docs prerequisite, but adds limited semantic value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves SDK documentation for one symbol as Markdown, and distinguishes whole-symbol retrieval from method-only retrieval. It also names get_map_example as the alternative for runnable code, separating it from sibling tools.

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 instructs the agent to use list_sdk_docs first to obtain ids and method names, and directs runnable-code needs to get_map_example. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative.

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