mapmodel_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the workflow link; it says nothing about how results are ordered, how limit/offset paging behaves (default 256, max 256), or what a stale map_epoch/generation does.

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, and the key resource and purpose come first. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation-free behavior explained, the definition leaves an agent unable to know what a result item looks like or how the two version filters differ. For a listing tool that feeds entity_create/entity_update, some indication of return shape or reference format is needed.

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% across four parameters, and the description mentions none of them. In particular map_epoch and generation are opaque filters — the description gives no hint that they scope the listing to a map version rather than being required identifiers, so an agent must guess from titles and patterns 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List mapmodel registry references') and ties it to the entity_create/update workflow, which distinguishes it from siblings like map_catalog and texture_catalog. The only gap is that 'mapmodel registry references' is domain jargon whose exact contents an agent must infer.

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 phrase 'for entity_create/update' implies this should be called to obtain valid references before creating or updating entities, which is useful routing context. However, it never states prerequisites, when not to use it, or anything about paging through results when the registry is large.

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