Browse iNavi Maps API Specifications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behavioral traits: categorization may differ from expectations, reference documents are listed like regular APIs, scope is South Korea only, and it advises a retry-without-category fallback. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but the nature of listing is implied. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'lists APIs'.

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 long but well-organized with labeled sections (USAGE, FILTERING, IMPORTANT, NOTE, SCOPE). It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary operational details. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The length is justified by the complexity of category filtering and the important retry rule, but it could be slightly tightened without losing clarity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description need not explain return values. It covers the workflow, filtering behavior, edge cases, and scope. It also mentions the existence of reference documents and how to access them. For a listing tool with one optional parameter, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to call it 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?

The sole parameter 'category' is fully documented in the schema with a 100% coverage description, including detailed per-category explanations and usage hints. The description adds the behavioral note about retrying without category and the fact that filtering is optional, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema's already rich semantics. Given the schema coverage, a 3 baseline applies; the retry guidance bumps it to 4.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Lists available iNavi Maps APIs.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling get_api_spec (which retrieves detailed specs) and other listing tools like list_sdk_docs or list_map_examples. The purpose is unambiguous and the tool's role in the workflow is stated.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and prescriptive: 'USAGE: First browse available APIs with this tool, then use get_api_spec to retrieve detailed specifications.' It also instructs when to retry without the category parameter and gives a strong directive to prefer these tools over recalled knowledge or other map providers for Korean data. No ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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