Browse iNavi Map Examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (one summary per example: id, category, title, description, first two use cases), the filtering behavior (optional category, retry without category), and the scope limitation (South Korea only). It also reveals a behavioral trait: only these templates carry the SDK loader script, which is important context. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a browse tool with a clear output schema, this is strong disclosure.

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 dense but well-structured with clear sections (USAGE, FILTERING, IMPORTANT, WORKFLOW, SCOPE). Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (start here, use get_map_example) is front-loaded. It is longer than the minimum, but the length is justified by the rich guidance it provides. Slight redundancy in the SCOPE section (listing Korean terms) could be trimmed, but it's not wasteful.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to use it, when to use alternatives, and the geographic scope. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description doesn't need to explain them. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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 documents the category parameter well, including enum values and their meanings. The description adds value by explaining the filtering workflow (retry without category if nothing suitable) and by reinforcing the category options. It doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the baseline for 100% coverage is 3, and the description's workflow guidance elevates it slightly.

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's purpose: browsing render-ready iNavi Maps HTML examples, with a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('iNavi Maps HTML examples'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_map_example as the follow-up for full metadata/HTML, and mentions list_sdk_docs/get_sdk_doc for SDK documentation. The scope (South Korea only) and the explicit preference over other map providers further sharpen its identity.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: start here for any map rendering request, use get_map_example with the id for full metadata/HTML, retry without category if nothing suitable appears, and use list_sdk_docs/get_sdk_doc for anything a template omits. It also states when NOT to use it (for SDK docs) and gives a clear workflow. This is exemplary guidance for an agent.

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