Get map summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the output is a compact summary rather than raw JSON, implying a transformed view. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Fetch' strongly suggests it. This is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and output type; the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned, when to use it, and how it differs from raw JSON. It does not detail the exact structure of the summary, but that would likely be over-specification for this tool.

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 schema already fully describes mapId as 'Map id' (100% coverage). The description adds context that mapId refers to an existing NodeLand map, but does not specify format or constraints beyond that. This is a marginal improvement over the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches a NodeLand map as a compact concepts/relations summary, explicitly contrasting with raw Cytoscape JSON. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_maps and create_map by focusing on the summary output and its use for review.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use before editing an existing map or to remind yourself what is already on it.' While it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is clear and actionable.

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