x_map_community

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the multi-step autonomous behavior (navigating, extracting, sampling). It stops short of the operational profile an agent needs: it never states that this is a read-only browser scrape, whether it requires an authenticated session, or that it is slow/expensive because it drives multiple page interactions.

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 that names the operation and then the steps, with no filler. It is appropriately sized; only the missing sibling routing keeps it from being exemplary.

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 six-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should at least hint at the shape of the mapping bundle it produces and how it relates to the atomic siblings. It covers the inputs' intent but leaves the return artifact and the routing decision unexplained, so it is only adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including feedLimit, profileLimit, save, and outputDir. The description's mention of 'extract feed rows' and 'profile a sample' loosely maps to those limits but adds no syntax, ranges, or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Run an autonomous community mapping pass') plus the resource and enumerates the three concrete steps: open community, extract feed rows, profile participants. An agent can tell it is a bundled pipeline. However, it never contrasts itself with the individual siblings (x_open_community, x_extract_community, x_extract_profile), so the 'map' composite is not clearly differentiated from the atomic tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the alternative atomic tools that perform the same steps individually. Usage can only be inferred from the word 'autonomous', leaving the agent to guess whether this replaces or supplements x_extract_community and x_extract_profile.

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