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 burden well: it discloses output format (Markdown), the content returned per mode, that referenced types are emitted as Markdown links carrying docIds, and that examples are omitted. It does not mention error behavior or how to handle unknown ids, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured with labeled clauses (PREREQUISITE, LINKS, NOTE). Every sentence adds distinct, actionable information with 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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return format and per-mode contents thoroughly, plus link behavior and the examples exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already documents both docId modes and the list_sdk_docs prerequisite. The description largely mirrors that, adding only the chaining note that link targets are docIds to feed back in, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves SDK documentation for one symbol as Markdown') and covers both retrieval modes explicitly. It is clearly distinguishable from list_sdk_docs (browsing) and get_map_example (runnable examples), which are named.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Use list_sdk_docs to obtain ids and method names') and names the alternative for examples ('use get_map_example for runnable code'). The when-to-use-which-mode guidance (class/type id vs method longname) is spelled out with an example.

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