map_integration_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type ('Integration architecture map with dependency risks and patterns') but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires network access, or any side effects/limitations. For a mapping/analysis tool, the lack of explicit behavioral guarantees is a significant gap.

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 structured with bullet points, argument explanations, and a returns section, making it scannable. However, it includes promotional language ('Essential for...') and repeats parameter information that would be better placed in the schema. It is moderately verbose but not excessively so.

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 a complex schema (6 params, 3 required, nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should do more. It provides usage scenarios and a high-level return description but fails to clarify the format of the integration map, how integration_patterns should be structured, or what 'risk' assessment entails. The parameter mismatch further reduces its completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section explains several parameters and their meaning (e.g., include_error_handling, show_configuration, risk_assessment). However, it lists 'integration_types' and 'custom_patterns' which do not match the actual schema's 'integration_patterns' parameter. The required core parameter 'integration_patterns' is left entirely unexplained, creating confusion and potential misuse.

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 opens with 'Map all external integration points and their characteristics,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It enumerates the types of insights (services, implementation, error handling, failure points) which distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like trace_dependency_impact or find_code_hotspots.

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 states 'Use this tool when you need to understand:' followed by concrete scenarios, and adds 'Essential for understanding system dependencies, planning for service outages, or designing resilient integration patterns.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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