map_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the qualifier "trusted local maps," which hints at a scope restriction, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or how many results come back by default.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the integration hint. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous about whether map_id is an input or an output of this tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a listed map entry looks like (id, name, dimensions?) and how paging works, but it does neither. For a catalog tool with three undocumented parameters and no declared return shape, the definition leaves the agent guessing on both invocation and interpretation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the three parameters (limit, offset, search) are documented nowhere. The description never mentions paging or what the search string matches against, so an agent must infer that limit/offset paginate and search filters by name from parameter titles alone.

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?

"List trusted local maps" gives a specific verb and resource, and the mention of opaque map_id values signals this is the discovery step for map_open. It does not differentiate from the similarly named catalog siblings (mapmodel_catalog, texture_catalog), but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 second sentence implies the intended workflow: call this first, then pass the resulting opaque map_id to map_open. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to mapmodel_catalog or texture_catalog, and no statement about when to filter with search versus listing everything.

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