List NodeLand maps

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context by scoping results to 'the API key's user', but it omits other behavioral details like pagination behavior or error responses. There is no contradiction with annotations (none provided).

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds practical usage context. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, ownership scope, and a practical use case. It could mention sorting or default pagination, but those are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and search), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline 3.

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's function: listing maps owned by the API key's user. The verb 'list' and resource 'maps' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings (create_map, get_map, add_to_map) by focusing on enumeration.

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?

Explicitly advises usage 'before get_map or add_to_map' to find an existing map id, giving a clear when-to-use directive. This distinguishes it from alternatives and provides practical context.

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