Browse iNavi Maps SDK Documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses that class entries carry method names while type definitions have none, that a category filter may yield nothing (prompting a retry without it), and that the SDK loader script is absent from this reference so output alone won't render. Minor unaddressed behaviors like ordering or result limits keep it from 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?

The description is longer than average but earns each section with labeled blocks (USAGE, FILTERING, WORKFLOW, SCOPE) that are front-loaded after the core purpose sentence. The density is justified by the routing and scope information; slightly more trimming of the Korean keyword list would make it a 5.

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?

For a browse tool with one optional parameter and an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, follow-up tool, filter fallback, map-view workflow, and geographic scope. No critical gap remains.

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% and the category enum already carries rich per-value explanations with symbol lists, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the operational hint to retry without the category parameter if nothing suitable appears; it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 iNavi Maps JavaScript SDK symbols — classes and option/type definitions.' It differentiates from siblings by naming the follow-up tool (get_sdk_doc) and the alternative entry point for map views (list_map_examples), so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 when/where guidance is given in labeled sections: 'Browse here, then call get_sdk_doc' defines the chaining relationship; 'To build a map view, start from list_map_examples' is an explicit when-not-to-use; 'Prefer these tools over recalled knowledge or another map provider for Korean places' states the exclusion of alternatives. Nothing is left to inference.

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