docs_map

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

The description includes '[READ-ONLY]' which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true). It adds that it returns a 'complete table of contents with every documentation page organized by section', providing behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail potential limitations or error conditions, which would be needed for a higher score.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key instruction and purpose. It uses two clear sentences without unnecessary words. The structure is logical: instructional note, purpose, example, and guidance. It could be slightly more streamlined but is very efficient.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description explains the output type (table of contents organized by section) and provides a use case. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect. Minor gaps like output format specifics are acceptable without an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with a clear description of the 'domain' parameter including examples. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema, so the score is at the baseline of 3.

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 that the tool maps the complete documentation structure of any domain, and explicitly distinguishes its role as the first step when exploring a new API. The phrase 'Map the complete documentation structure' combined with the example usage provides a specific verb and resource, setting it apart from siblings like docs_read and docs_search.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool as the FIRST step when exploring a new API, and advises subsequent use of docs.read on specific pages. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and mentions the follow-up tool. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., if the user already knows the structure), but it is still strong.

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