list_maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the underlying API call (aprx.listMaps) without mentioning side effects, performance implications, or safety. A read-only operation is implied but not confirmed.

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 very concise at one sentence, front-loading the core action. However, it could be slightly restructured to include the return type or output detail without adding length.

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 simplicity of the tool (single param, no output schema for agent to see), the description is minimally complete. It identifies the resource and method but omits any mention of return format (e.g., list of strings) or error scenarios, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 description adds no additional meaning beyond the input schema, which already describes the required param 'aprx_path' as 'Absolute .aprx path.' With only one parameter and schema coverage apparently at 0% (though the param has a description), the description does not compensate but also does not mislead.

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 'List' and resource 'map names inside an .aprx project', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_layers which list layers within maps. It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_layers_in_map). The description does not provide context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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