list_maps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It communicates that only maps accessible to the authenticated user are returned, and it lists the included fields. However, it does not mention potential pagination, response size limits, or any authentication prerequisites beyond the qualifier 'authenticated Felt user.'

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 brief, front-loaded with the core action, and directly followed by the output contents. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It states the operational scope, authentication context, and return fields, leaving no critical gap for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings to explain. The input schema is trivially covered, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. The description adds value by describing the output shape instead of repeating parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all maps accessible to the authenticated Felt user.' It also states the returned fields (id, title, URL, project, access level), making the tool's purpose and output unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_map_details, which focuses on a single map.

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 implies straightforward usage: call this tool to get an overview of all accessible maps. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a list operation with zero parameters.

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