list_maps

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a specific behavioral constraint: maximum 2000 records returned. This is valuable beyond annotations, though it could mention sorting or pagination behavior for completeness.

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?

The description is extremely concise: three lines covering purpose, parameters, return fields, and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, and the emoji front-loads the action. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential return fields and a max limit. It could add context about whether the list includes all maps or filtered, but it's largely complete for a straightforward list operation.

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?

With 0 parameters, schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no parameters are needed ('无需参数'), adding clarity. No additional parameter meaning is required.

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 returns a list of maps with code, name, and building. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '地图列表' (map list) are specific, distinguishing it from other list tools like list_areas or list_tags, though it lacks explicit differentiation. Overall purpose is clear and 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 description mentions no parameters and a 2000-record limit, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_areas, list_tags, etc. No explicit context on prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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