map

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

It discloses behavior beyond the annotations: nothing on the phone is changed except open, snapshots mask identifiers/tokens/numbers, the map is self-rebuilt after updates, and titles are in the phone's language with accents optional. That directly clarifies why readOnlyHint is false while destructiveHint is false.

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?

It leads with the default action and scope, which is good, but the rest is a dense run-on of semicolons and parentheticals that makes individual actions hard to scan. The content earns its place, yet the formatting could be much tighter.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, it describes what each action returns (path from Settings, current value, highlight, changed items). It only omits the meaning of 'limit' and how results are paginated or truncated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all 8 parameters, and it explains action values, query (with a concrete example and accent note), key, target, path, append, and since formats (2h, 3d, a date). Only 'limit' is left unexplained.

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 names the resource (a map of the whole phone's settings screens) and enumerates five distinct actions (find/open/snapshot/diff/note) with what each returns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like settings, launch, and look.

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?

It gives context for each action: find is the default for locating a setting from the user's words, open is for jumping to a screen found by find, and it references launch(action=…) as an alternate way to open things. It never explicitly says when NOT to use this tool versus settings/look, but the routing is largely implied by the per-action descriptions.

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