Browse iNavi Map Examples

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

With no annotations, description fully bears transparency burden. It explains the 'two-tier metadata system', 'lightweight summaries', and mentions returned fields (ID, title, description, tags). However, it does not mention pagination or limits, which could be relevant for a list tool.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (USAGE, FILTERING) and no redundant sentences. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the low complexity (1 optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage flow, filtering, and output characteristics. The existence of output schema does not detract from completeness.

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% with detailed enum descriptions. The description adds minimal extra: emphasizes optionality and a note that 'shapes' are also known as features. Per guidelines, baseline 3 with high coverage; slight extra information does not justify a 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 clearly states the tool browses and discovers iNavi Maps HTML examples, with specific verb 'browse/discover' and resource 'examples'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_map_example' by indicating this is the first step before retrieval.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Call this tool first to see what examples are available, then use get_map_example with the desired ID.' Also explains filtering by category, providing clear context for when and how to use.

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