list_drum_maps

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the composition of the result set: both user-saved maps and built-in instrument maps. Since no output schema exists, that return-content detail is genuinely useful, though pagination and result shape are still unspecified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the resource is named immediately and the scope detail follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 no-argument, read-only listing tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations, the description covers what it returns well enough. It stops short of describing ordering, counts, or what a map entry contains, which would help an agent consume the output.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 gives a specific verb (Lists) and resource (drum maps), and further scopes the result set to two sources: the user's saved maps and the instrument maps bundled with creaper. This makes it easy to distinguish from save_drum_map, delete_drum_map, and map_drum_kit, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step to run before saving, mapping, or deleting a drum map, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to use instead (e.g., map_drum_kit vs. save_drum_map). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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